A crash course in nuclear wessels.
March 12, 2011 9:06 PM Subscribe

Amidst the massive aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami being discussed in this thread, the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plants continues to unfold. For objective information, discussion, and analysis of the ongoing efforts to stabilize the fuel cores in the boiling water reactors of the type in Fukushima, nuclear engineers such as @arclight are providing laypeople with a much needed crash course on the inner workings of nuclear reactors.

posted by Dr. Zira (3070 comments total) 182 users marked this as a favorite

Don't Panic.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:10 PM on March 12, 2011

Don't tell me what not to do.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:11 PM on March 12, 2011 [49 favorites]

Living on the west coast of California, I'm monitoring myself on a minute by minute basis; no additional limbs or superpowers yet, but I'm presuming it's only a matter of time.
posted by infinitywaltz at 9:12 PM on March 12, 2011 [4 favorites]

Thank you, Dr. Zira.
posted by islander at 9:13 PM on March 12, 2011

Don't use goggles. I hear they do nothing.
posted by Dr. Zira at 9:13 PM on March 12, 2011 [12 favorites]

I for one welcome our new Japanese nuclear emergency thread.

Please keep it unfighty, as noted repeatedly in the precursor. We're down some mods this week.
posted by mwhybark at 9:15 PM on March 12, 2011 [2 favorites]

I've found @Touruma (sometimes retweeted by @arclight) to be a good reporter of news from the Japanese media.
posted by zippy at 9:15 PM on March 12, 2011

FYI: arclight is scheduled for a CNN interview in about 10 minutes.
posted by Dr. Zira at 9:15 PM on March 12, 2011

And there's a little page on the unofficial MetaFilter wiki that's the start of a summary from the mega-thread. If no one else does so, I'll update it tomorrow.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:15 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Assuming this thing goes into meltdown -- what are the best and worst case scenarios?

I assume the best case scenario is that containment holds and they dump a bunch of concrete on it? How much area would have to be evacuated?

What happens if they lose containment? What are the odds that it explodes? If it explodes, what would cause the explosion? Can it hit the jet stream?

Is there a middle ground? Can it partially lose containment?
posted by empath at 9:15 PM on March 12, 2011

There is zero chance of a nuclear explosion.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:17 PM on March 12, 2011 [5 favorites]

There are other explosions possible besides nuclear ones.
posted by empath at 9:18 PM on March 12, 2011

"There is zero chance of a nuclear explosion"

Well, then there's nothing to worry about...

Comments like mine and furious's are why this thread was created...
posted by Windopaene at 9:19 PM on March 12, 2011

empath: If they had full meltdown with containment holding why is any concrete necessary, by definition containment is containment.

Re: middle ground. I don't fully understand the logic that could lead one to such a conclusion. A breach in containment is a breach in containment. Partial loss is loss.

As to actual numbers, I don't think anyone can give those and anyone that tries is suspect.

But I do agree that there is zero chance of a nuclear explosion and the containment in question has already survived one explosion... not to mention that pesky earthquake and tsunami and pressure/temperatures beyond that which it is designed to operate under on a daily basis.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:20 PM on March 12, 2011

this thread is fine. If you. flag, please also move on. Thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:22 PM on March 12, 2011 [16 favorites]

empath: "Assuming this thing goes into meltdown -- what are the best and worst case scenarios?

I assume the best case scenario is that containment holds and they dump a bunch of concrete on it? How much area would have to be evacuated?

What happens if they lose containment? What are the odds that it explodes? If it explodes, what would cause the explosion? Can it hit the jet stream?

Is there a middle ground? Can it partially lose containment"

I'll take a crack at this just based on living in the other thread for a couple of days.

best and worst case:
unsure. Best is the shutdowns complete without meltdown.

capped and contain but still in meltdown: how much evac?
unsure, my guess is that maybe no evacuation becasue if it was contained there would be no additional external radiation.

What happens if they lose containment? What are the odds that it explodes? If it explodes, what would cause the explosion? Can it hit the jet stream?

a) radiation levels in the area would increase

b & c) well, that's tricky, as there has been an explosion. you mean just the core itself, correct?

d) again, uncertain. It would take a hot and exposed fire to get the material into the jetstream. knowledgeable commenters in the other thread are very clear that such an eventuality is unlikely.

if so, I don't think it is supposed to be likely, but there is a pressure issue which is why they were venting the hydrogen that caused the non-core explosion.
posted by mwhybark at 9:23 PM on March 12, 2011

Thanks for this thread. I was really wanting to see a Mefi Japan/nuke thread. The earthquake and the tsunami (and recovery) are big and bad enough to have their own thread. The nuke problem is still playing out, and of course has a strong technical element that merits a forum for clear discussion.

I know it's not really kosher, but I come to Mefi to follow up on news stories. Even the best news sources focus on the real time elements in a superficial way; I count on MeFites to throw in some exceptional knowledge, commentary, and links to community vetted sources that are good for a greater depth of understanding.
posted by Xoebe at 9:23 PM on March 12, 2011 [17 favorites]

I wasn't suggesting a nuclear explosion, but what happens inside a plant when it melts down and containment is breached? I assume chemicals are released by the intense heat? There's no chance of them being flammable? As you said, this plant has already had one explosion. Chernobyl exploded when it melted down -- can this one explode after a containment breach or not?
posted by empath at 9:23 PM on March 12, 2011

If there is absolutely no chance of explosion, then why have 50,000+ people been evacuated from the regions near the two reactor sites?
posted by KokuRyu at 9:24 PM on March 12, 2011 [4 favorites]

Or some other unforseen event that causes additional failures. Several times since the quake we have heard that the situation is "under control" only to see that change rapidly to "additional evacuations are now underway".
posted by Windopaene at 9:24 PM on March 12, 2011

It's significant to note that large-scale reactors are old tech, new tech being small-scale reactors - pebble-bed and 4s. A cataclysmic earthquake would simply ramp down nuclear reactions, rather than cause a meltdown due to loss of cooling.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:25 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Best case scenario: Containment holds. Some further radiation leakage but limited. People will be allowed to return home soon.

Worst case scenario: Containment fails. Core debris ejected into the atmosphere. Prevailing winds carry debris over Japanese coast and local area. Exclusion zone around reactor becomes essentially permanent. Radioactive isotopes contaminate Pacific fishing grounds. Some radiation reaches the US Northwest and BC, though it's more panic than real harm to humans and wildlife.
posted by dw at 9:25 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm curious to hear (from those in Japan or with background/experience there) about what we can expect from the Japanese media on this topic now and going forward?

More specifically, is the Japanese news media going to provide the best source for what's going on, and if governmental officials begin to downplay certain realities or possibilities (for fear, understandably perhaps, of spreading panic) might we expect the Japanese news media to help keep the news relatively spin-free?
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 9:26 PM on March 12, 2011

So, there is nothing preventing any investors from building nuclear power plants in the US, they choose just not to finance them.

Anyone have any links that might explain why?

Advocates today have been made the argument(repeatedly) that rational analysis would seem to indicate that there is a manageable risk level using modern nuclear and civil engineering.

Are they not profitable? Is it that there is no one willing to insure investors if there is a messy, but non-fatality making incident that might render their investment worthless(or even a financial liability)?

How do other countries that are still building new reactors for power production manage these resources(public finance, private finance, hybrid)?
posted by dglynn at 9:26 PM on March 12, 2011

Well, I think they're saying there's 0% chance of an 'fission bomb' happening, and I think everyone understands that here. But any sort of explosion after a containment breach would be bad, even if it's diesel fuel or hydrogen, i would think.
posted by empath at 9:26 PM on March 12, 2011

As you said, this plant has already had one explosion. Chernobyl exploded when it melted down -- can this one explode after a containment breach or not?

No, it can't. Chernobyl happened because of a design fault that is not present in this case.

Worst case scenario: Containment fails. Core debris ejected into the atmosphere.

Please explain how this occurs.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:26 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

... is the Japanese news media going to provide the best source for what's going on

Probably not.

if governmental officials begin to downplay certain realities or possibilities (for fear, understandably perhaps, of spreading panic) might we expect the Japanese news media to help keep the news relatively spin-free?

Probably not.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:27 PM on March 12, 2011 [3 favorites]

I would think the potential liabilities that could be incurred by a nuclear plant would scare most investors off.
posted by Windopaene at 9:27 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thanks for the clarification, jessamyn
posted by filthy light thief at 9:28 PM on March 12, 2011

OK, the explosion that happened at reactor 1 this morning for example. Had the core vessel been compromised, such an explosion would have been catastrophic.

Seems pretty obvious, unless you are just trolling.
posted by Windopaene at 9:29 PM on March 12, 2011

New reactors with passive safety designs have started up.
posted by davel at 9:31 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

(It's also significant to note that the Fukushima power plants all have old, old reactors. The situation there is Not Good, but hopefully can be ameliorated by superlative safety design, including containment vessels if all else fails.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:31 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Potential liabilities, public viewpoint, and concern for prolongued protests and legal battles. The return on investments for a public or private entity wouldn't happen for a long time, and funding / inveestors might move elsewhere in the meantime.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:32 PM on March 12, 2011

Sure, a nuclear detonation is impossible, but a fire involving nuclear fuel and irradiated debris is possible. The risk seems to be diminishing, but it could still happen.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:33 PM on March 12, 2011

OK, the explosion that happened at reactor 1 this morning for example. Had the core vessel been compromised, such an explosion would have been catastrophic.

It would have been catastrophic long before the explosion, had containment already been breached. The core is built to withstand the pressure, the facade that exploded was not.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:34 PM on March 12, 2011

New reactors with passive safety designs have started up.

I'm dumb as a rotten post but this seems blatantly obvious as a design goal.
posted by BeerFilter at 9:34 PM on March 12, 2011

empath, I highly suggest reading the other thread, many of your questions are answered in that locale.

As I understand it based on the information available in the other thread, a core breach could result from a buildup of hydrogen in the core itself. I could be totally wrong about this.

As to the possibility of the core exploding like an atomic weapon, It is my understanding that that is not going to happen. I think that also did not happen at Chernobyl.

Again, knowledgeable commentators in the other thread have been very clear that the design of this reactor is sufficiently different from that at Chernobyl that what happened there can't happen in Japan.

The details of that difference remain outside my knowledge.

Please remain civil, folks. Sniping at one another will make this thread useless. That means if you are skeptical about the information being presented by TEPCO and other nuclear-industry folks, don't insult the nuke people that are in here voluntarily contributing. It also means if you are a nuclear partisan, please don't assume that only idiots and fools disagree with your position.

Insulting, derogatory, and belittling remarks cannot possibly help us understand the situation. We did a very good job in the other thread. Let's do it again here.
posted by mwhybark at 9:35 PM on March 12, 2011 [15 favorites]

Rather than talking of some sort of nuclear explosion, it may be more useful to consider the possibility of the damaged core going critical again (i.e. restarting a fission chain reaction). How likely is that? (And please explain why.)
posted by ryanrs at 9:35 PM on March 12, 2011

It's my understanding that liability of operators is limited by agreement with the US government. But even after avoiding absolute liability, ownership of an asset incapable of producing revenue would still be a loss on any investor's balance sheet.
posted by dglynn at 9:35 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Please explain how this occurs.

It's not going to explode like a bomb, but if the reactor core goes straight through the bottom of containment, there is a possibility it will hit the water table and create a steam explosion. The steam would carry radioactive particles into the jet stream.

Possible. Not bloody likely, though.
posted by dw at 9:37 PM on March 12, 2011

There is zero chance of a nuclear explosion.

A) Are you high? Gimme some of that shit, it must be tasty.

B) You know, I really wish you wouldn't do that. People keep saying "This won't happen" and then it happens.

C) Oh, you mean a supercritical fission explosion as though from a nuclear weapon? No, you're right. That's not going to happen. But an uncontrolled core meltdown can breed a number of nasty isotopes both short and long lived. A plain old gun type fission nuclear bomb can be clean burning by comparison due to the higher temperatures and more complete use of the fuel. Just because there isn't an earth shattering kaboom and a giant mushroom cloud doesn't mean that the corium slag left over isn't going to be more radioactive for longer.

Let's put it this way. I'd much rather go picnicking in the sand at Yucca Flat where they tested hundreds of nuclear weapons than I would in the unquantifiable corium debris of Chernobyl. Yucca Flat is nice and clean compared to Chernobyl.
posted by loquacious at 9:37 PM on March 12, 2011 [8 favorites]

It would have been catastrophic long before the explosion, had containment already been breached. The core is built to withstand the pressure, the facade that exploded was not.

Yes, but you are saying there is absolutely 0% chance of an explosion at a plant which has already had an explosion and which is the middle of a meltdown, even if containment is breeched. I'm curious what you're basing that opinion on. Are you a nuclear engineer and familiar enough with that plant that you can rule out any explosive reaction of any chemicals present in a 40 year old power plant with temperatures approaching 2000 degrees celcius after a containment breach?
posted by empath at 9:38 PM on March 12, 2011 [7 favorites]

As officials struggle with the specter of meltdowns at two plants in Fukushima, many Japanese don't trust authorities are telling them everything they know.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 9:39 PM on March 12, 2011

Bill Gates says it's reliable, does he? Hmph.
posted by ryanrs at 9:40 PM on March 12, 2011 [6 favorites]

Guys, just go read Wikipedia.

Well that settles it.
posted by empath at 9:41 PM on March 12, 2011

Yes, but you are saying there is absolutely 0% chance of an explosion at a plant which has already had an explosion and which is the middle of a meltdown

I just popped your balloon with a needle, so who is to say I can't pop a bowling ball?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:41 PM on March 12, 2011 [4 favorites]

In technical discussions, analogies are usually the language of the ignorant.
posted by ryanrs at 9:42 PM on March 12, 2011 [8 favorites]

It's my understanding that liability of operators is limited by agreement with the US government.

LOL that's one way of putting it. Another way: taxpayers are responsible for paying any damages caused by nuclear power plants.
posted by stbalbach at 9:43 PM on March 12, 2011 [4 favorites]

Yes, that is what he is saying. The containment vessels are safe. Everything is under control...
posted by Windopaene at 9:43 PM on March 12, 2011

Yes, but you are saying there is absolutely 0% chance of an explosion at a plant which has already had an explosion and which is the middle of a meltdown

No, furiousxgeorge thought we were talking about a nuclear explosion, but he agrees that there is a chance that there could be a conventional explosion that could spray radioactive material into the environment.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:44 PM on March 12, 2011

Guys, just go read Wikipedia.

[CITATION NEEDED]

furiousxgeorge, can you please give the noisy one-liners a rest? People are actually trying to have a conversation about this, and I feel you're being... well, really juvenile and jerky.
posted by loquacious at 9:44 PM on March 12, 2011 [9 favorites]

In technical discussions, analogies are usually the language of the ignorant.

Ok, explain how is is feasible the containment will be broken. How will this occur? No analogies, technical details, go.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:44 PM on March 12, 2011

goddamit, stop it. There is a fucking nuclear emergency going on that people want to learn about and cockwaggling does not contribute to that goal one whit.
posted by mwhybark at 9:44 PM on March 12, 2011 [17 favorites]

Wow, I didn't know that re liability. I wonder if that's the way it is the world over?

Sucks to be a taxpayer in that case.
posted by Windopaene at 9:44 PM on March 12, 2011

Worst case scenario if the reactor melts down? I don't know, but I've started to estimate how much fuel is in the reactor.

There are 400 fuel assemblies containing 97 uranium control rods, each rod 3.66m long. I don't have figures on the mass of the fuel (or the diameter of the rods) however. I also don't know how fresh the fuel is.
posted by zippy at 9:44 PM on March 12, 2011

Guys, just go read Wikipedia.

Already ahead of you, skimming the Chernobyl entry. If nothing else, the design of Chernobyl is different then the design of the Japanese reactors.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:45 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Fuel melts, pools at bottom of reactor vessel, goes critical, melts through floor. Taa, daa!

No idea how likely, though.
posted by ryanrs at 9:46 PM on March 12, 2011

dglynn: There are a lot of reasons nuclear plants haven't been built in the US in a while. This Congressional Research Services Report gives a lot more information, but the big reasons are:

They cost a lot of time and money to build, return on investment is measured in decades, investors hate that.
Operations costs are high, and we have abundant cheap fossil fuels (primarily coal).
Public distrust. Applying to build a nuclear plant requires federal, state, and local approval.

That said, in the last decade, several energy companies have started thinking about applying to build new plants (up to 30 around the country, I believe), likely most of them won't be built, but the US may be seeing another one or two in the next 25 years or so.
posted by thebestsophist at 9:46 PM on March 12, 2011 [2 favorites]

From the (LA Times) news link I just posted:

As many people here are well aware, the company, known as Tepco, has a history of not being forthcoming about nuclear safety issues, particularly those surrounding earthquake-related dangers. In 2003, all 17 of its nuclear plants were shut down temporarily after a scandal over falsified safety-inspection reports. It ran into trouble again in 2006, when it emerged that coolant-water data at two plants had been falsified in the 1980s.

Critics have long expressed deep concern about safety at many of Japan's nuclear facilities, some which date back to the 1970s and 1980s. Fukushima has long been on critics' radar, but so has the Hamaoka plant, just 100 miles southwest of Tokyo, which perches on an active fault line.

"I have been warning about Japan's possibility of a genpatsu shinsai — a nuclear disaster," said Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a seismologist and professor emeritus at Kobe University. He said Fukushima was only one of a number of nuclear complexes in seismically unsafe locations.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 9:46 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Already ahead of you, skimming the Chernobyl entry. If nothing else, the design of Chernobyl is different then the design of the Japanese reactors.

Yes, that is the lesson you should take from it. Different to the point where a Chernobyl type accident can't occur.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:47 PM on March 12, 2011

furiousxgeorge, you are speaking the language of "It shouldn't happen" - this is reasonable. It's worthwhile to talk about Japanese vs. Soviet Bloc power plant design.

What other people are pointing out is that there are corner cases, and in the event of the most powerful quake in Japanese history, where we saw tsunamis 60 klicks or more inland, some of those corner cases need to be taken very fucking seriously.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:47 PM on March 12, 2011

Ok, explain how is is feasible the containment will be broken. How will this occur? No analogies, technical details, go.

You have a runaway reaction that melts the uranium into a a white hot slag that melts through the bottom of a containment system which may or may not have been severely damaged by a series of earthquakes. That is what a meltdown is. You really don't know what you are talking about.

I mean, I barely do, but I know more than you, surely. An uncontained meltdown is surely in the realm of possibility here.
posted by empath at 9:47 PM on March 12, 2011

Interactive graphics at The New York Times: The Crippled Japanese Nuclear Reactors
posted by hat at 9:49 PM on March 12, 2011 [6 favorites]

Wow, I didn't know that re liability. I wonder if that's the way it is the world over?

All I believe. The reason is no insurance company will take on the risk given the potential liability of a nuclear meltdown. It's a super sweet deal for the electric companies. Even the oil companies have to pay to clean up their mess (some of it anyway). The nuclear power industry is so heavily subsidized by governments that it could not exist otherwise, no one would insure them, they are "too big when failed".
posted by stbalbach at 9:49 PM on March 12, 2011 [2 favorites]

No, furiousxgeorge thought we were talking about a nuclear explosion, but he agrees that there is a chance that there could be a conventional explosion that could spray radioactive material into the environment.

To be honest, I thought everyone was talking about a nuclear/atomic-bomb style explosion too. A conventional explosion that spreads radioactive material seems possible, as far as I know.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:49 PM on March 12, 2011

is the Japanese news media going to provide the best source for what's going on,

At the moment, the people on the scene (TEPCO, Japanese government) are the only primary sources that I know of. My impression is that TEPCO reports accurately, but delays reporting of bad stuff, and then reports it in a way that downplays it but is otherwise accurate.

One example of this - TEPCO releases updates almost every hour on each reactor (unit) at the two Fukushima stations. Rather than saying "water has leaked out" they instead say "water hasn't leaked" in all of the OK reactors, so I sometimes have to read between the lines to figure out what badness has happened.

Other government's sources probably won't be more accurate until there's something they can a) measure, and b) talk about (i.e., they measured radioactive contaminant with unclassified detectors).
posted by zippy at 9:52 PM on March 12, 2011

Fuel melts, pools at bottom of reactor vessel, goes critical, melts through floor. Taa, daa!

Also known as a worst case scenario called the China Syndrome. The myth is that such a meltdown in the US could melt through the crust and go all the way to China. The informed speculation is that it might reach a depth of 10 meters before cooling down enough to stop moving, and that if that's wrong and it reaches the mantle, it would be dispersed.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:53 PM on March 12, 2011

I also don't know how fresh the fuel is.
zippy, could you explain this a bit further? Since the uranium is converted into solid (ceramic?) pellets for use as fuel, how does the freshness of the fuel factor into the analysis? Does the solid fuel have a shelf life?
posted by Dr. Zira at 9:54 PM on March 12, 2011

An uncontained meltdown is surely in the realm of possibility here.

There is no reason to believe this will be the case, the containment is built to withstand these events.

Georgia Tech Nuclear expert: Japan's nuclear plant doesn't sound dire

Even if the reactor core were to melt down (this has not even happened yet, remember), Rahnema said it probably would not produce the dire consequences seen in Chernobyl. That plant had few of the safety features required in Japan. Even if the Fukushima reactor were to melt the central pressure vessel that contains it, he said, the radioactive fuel would still be held within a concrete containment, something he said was lacking in the Chernobyl design.

The experts are saying the situation is dire, I repeat, don't panic.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:54 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

*isn't.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:54 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

The Guardian is reporting the Fukushima reactors are using MOX as fuel. MOX uses a plutonium oxide. Not sure what the significance of MOX fuel is.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:55 PM on March 12, 2011

There is no reason to believe this will be the case, the containment is built to withstand these events.

That is absolutely not true. It wasn't built to withstand an earthquake of this magnitude.
posted by empath at 9:55 PM on March 12, 2011

Yes, reactor #3, the new one that has gone into meltdown uses plutonium as part of its fuel.
posted by Windopaene at 9:56 PM on March 12, 2011

There is no reason to believe this will be the case, the containment is built to withstand these events.

And we've already seen that the concrete containment can go boom...
posted by Windopaene at 9:58 PM on March 12, 2011

The NYT is reporting that TEPEC has been playing fast and loose with safety standards since at least the '80s. If you're relying on solid engineering and maintenance from the company who owns those reactors, you may be in for a surprise.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:58 PM on March 12, 2011

I was given to think that the containment proper was inside the big concrete boxes. Was I wrong?

And what magnitude earthquakes was it built to withstand?
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:59 PM on March 12, 2011

We have seen concrete go boom. Not containment concrete by the way. And the containment concrete survived the boom intact. While your survey size is small, and time is still ticking, your results prove the case that the containment is adequate.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:01 PM on March 12, 2011

The big boxes are the secondary containment. The primary containment is inside that.
posted by Windopaene at 10:01 PM on March 12, 2011 [3 favorites]

How the containment system can be broken, scenario 2: the core becomes hot enough to generates a large amount of hydrogen. The hydrogen and oxygen in the reactor vessel combine explosively and blow the reactor open.
posted by zippy at 10:01 PM on March 12, 2011

And we've already seen that the concrete containment can go boom...

...which was not built to withstand the pressure that blew it.

And what magnitude earthquakes was it built to withstand?

7.3 at least, looking into it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:01 PM on March 12, 2011

Designed to withstand 8.0 I think I recall reading.
posted by Windopaene at 10:02 PM on March 12, 2011

There's a long way from "core so hot it's damaged" to "melted to liquid metal." The second instance is what meltdown means. There's no evidence that a meltdown has occurred and the only time it appears in sourced quotes is somebody saying it's not impossible. Not impossible is pretty sloppy.

There is no information to suggest that a meltdown has occurred, except for one guy who keeps getting quoted over and over and over and over and over again because he said meltdown:

"There is a possibility, we see the possibility of a meltdown," said Toshihiro Bannai, director of the international affairs office of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety, in a telephone interview with CNN from the agency's Tokyo headquarters. "At this point, we have still not confirmed that there is an actual meltdown, but there is a possibility."

We do know that both reactors got hot enough to damage the cores. This means hot enough for the zirconium cladding to oxidize and create hydrogen. It has to get much hotter to melt.

The fears about melted cores are that the rods are spaced apart so there is considerable empty space in the core. A full meltdown would put all the material in a much smaller volume and the reaction rate would increase. This is because the neutrons become more likely to split atoms in a denser mass. It would get hotter. Hot enough to melt metal into a liquid, but not hot enough to boil it. Think a couple of thousand degrees. Bright orange hot.

The reaction rate would never go high enough for a supercritical chain reaction like occurs in an A-bomb. That involves temperatures in the plasma range. No reactor can do that. None. Never. Zero. It is impossible.

The explosion that would follow a meltdown would be due to steam or gases created when the really hot liquid metal hits water or thomething else tha flashes to gas. As explosions go, it would be less briscant than black powder and less than a hydrogen explosion. As explosions go, it would be a very slow explosion.

It would be local. It would really nasty, but local. It is not going to drift across the Pacific and irradiate the West coast. Cliff Mass says so in his blog:

You may not believe this, but some of the survivalist and anti-nuclear web sites are already going nuts about the "threat."

Older fuel will be dirtier because it will have more fission products. New fuel will be relatively pure. Spent fuel is much much dirtier than new fuel. That's why fuel isn't very hazardous to move around, but waste is.
posted by warbaby at 10:02 PM on March 12, 2011 [28 favorites]

The big boxes are not containment structure. They are simply buildings. That's what I've heard from all sides. The containment structure is a different beast altogether.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:02 PM on March 12, 2011 [4 favorites]

SciAm: Nuclear Experts Explain Worst-Case Scenario at Fukushima Power Plant

(haven't read it yet, Xeni just posted it and i saw it in my BB feed)
posted by mwhybark at 10:03 PM on March 12, 2011 [5 favorites]

Does the solid fuel have a shelf life?

I would imagine that since it is radioactive material, that over time, it radioactively decays into material that can't be used for fission.
posted by XhaustedProphet at 10:03 PM on March 12, 2011

how does the freshness of the fuel factor into the analysis? Does the solid fuel have a shelf life?

No shelf life, per se. Fission is the process of transmuting elements into other elements. As the fuel is used, the composition of the fuel changes, and that also means the risks change.
posted by Chuckles at 10:03 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

I would venture that the bottom line is we don't know now, and won't know for some time, what the immediate and long-term dangers in fact are. That the evacuation radius appears to have been extended may merely be a precautionary measure, or it may be indication that meltdowns (with all the vagueness of that term) are actually underway. Unless I'm missing something, it appears very difficult to say with any degree of accuracy what the situation is.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 10:03 PM on March 12, 2011

Though I have no doubt that the authorities have been downplaying the possibility of a China Syndrome in Japan -- have we heard any more about the 'coolant' shipped in to prevent such a thing happening? The coolant presumed to be sodium polyborate?

Not gonna panic just yet, seeing as how there's dick all I can do about it anyway.
posted by Capt. Renault at 10:04 PM on March 12, 2011

Nuclear safety experts were seeking answers to other questions about Japan's nuclear facilities that have been obscured by the focus on the Fukushima reactors. The nuclear plants also have spent fuel pools that some experts say may have spilled during the earthquake and its aftershocks. Tokyo Electric has not commented yet on those pools, which in the case of the GE-designed reactors are located on the roof, possibly making them vulnerable.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:05 PM on March 12, 2011 [2 favorites]

For what it's worth, I live 35 miles from a General Electric Mark I boiling water reactor, identical to the Fukushima facilities and built almost exactly at the same time. I have no worries about it.

Also for what it's worth, while the entire world is freaking, I am certain that the GE Mark I was designed and built by the best nuclear engineers of the time, and the Fukushima incident is being attended by the best nuclear engineers in the world.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:05 PM on March 12, 2011 [5 favorites]

Yeah yeah yeah, the building that blew up is insignificant. So now whatever caused that building to blow up is venting directly into the atmosphere. Seems like one would rather the buliding didn't blow up, really.
posted by BeerFilter at 10:06 PM on March 12, 2011

It would be local. It would really nasty, but local.

I don't think you understand how huge the Chernobyl exclusion zone is. A nuke going off isn't the problem, and almost everyone knows it. The problem is the irridation of people, homes, and communities... some of them a way far away from the plant itself.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:06 PM on March 12, 2011

This paper includes a breakdown of how MOX might behave during an accident.
posted by empath at 10:06 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

From the SciAM link mwhybark posted above:

"So there's some advantages to the BWR in terms of severe accidents. But one of the disadvantages is that the containment structure is a lightbulb-shaped steel shell that's only about 30 or 40 feet across—thick steel, but relatively small compared to large, dry containments like TMI. And it doesn't provide as much of an extra layer of defense from reactor accidents as containments like TMI. So there is a great deal of concern that, if the core does melt, the containment will not be able to survive. And if the containment doesn't survive, we have a worst-case situation."
posted by Windopaene at 10:08 PM on March 12, 2011 [2 favorites]

From @arclight:

This important to stress: Most of the 100s of workers at Fukushima Daiichi live close to the plant so it's their families & houses at risk.

Seriously. Put yourself in their shoes. Two massive natural disasters, a severe reactor accident where they are the only line of defense...

... and they know if the plant breaks open and lets out that cesium & iodine, it's their wife & kids downwind. How do you process that?

Those guys are heroes in the sense they are doing precisely what they are trained to do when nobody would blame them for cutting & running
posted by Artw at 10:08 PM on March 12, 2011 [13 favorites]

With nuclear, there's zero liability for the corporations at all?

There may be some liability for the corps, but consider the potential liability of a single nuclear accident could be 100s B or even Trillions of dollars (imagine Chernobyl outside NYC, or Tokyo). It's impossible to find a private insurer for that. Thus, the government promises to pay for damages over X amount. The government (taxpayers) are the insurer. Most insurance policies will cap how much is paid out, depending how much you pay in - not so with nuclear insurance, no limit paid out, very little (if at all) paid in. Good deal, huh?
posted by stbalbach at 10:08 PM on March 12, 2011 [2 favorites]

hat: "Interactive graphics at The New York Times: The Crippled Japanese Nuclear Reactors"

This is extremely helpful and informative, everyone. Looks like some other news sources are coming online finally.
posted by mwhybark at 10:09 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thanks, warbaby, that's the comment I was looking for when I asked my questions.
posted by empath at 10:09 PM on March 12, 2011

Also known as a worst case scenario called the China Syndrome. The myth is that such a meltdown in the US could melt through the crust and go all the way to China.

I'm too young to be familiar with The China Syndrome when it first came out. Was this really the premise? Because it's completely idiotic.
posted by ryanrs at 10:10 PM on March 12, 2011 [3 favorites]

I also don't know how fresh the fuel is.
zippy, could you explain this a bit further?

It's something @arclight brought up in one of his tweets.

You start with Uranium Oxide, I believe "enriched to 7% ²³⁵U. That's fresh fuel.

Over time, as you 'burn' the fuel in normal operation^*, you have less energy - less ²³⁵U. You also have fission products, "every element from zinc through to the lanthanides."

Some of them are nasty: "Many of the fission products are either non-radioactive or only short-lived radioisotopes. But a considerable number are medium to long-lived radioisotopes such as 90Sr, 137Cs, 99Tc and 129I."

* burn here means liberating energy that holds the atom together, as opposed to normal burning, where you liberate energy that holds the molecule together.
posted by zippy at 10:12 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

The coolant presumed to be sodium polyborate?

I linked this in the main quake thread, but Bob Cringely (who was an advisor for Three Mile Island) is reporting exactly that.

You should read that post/article.

Note that he also says:

An earthquake with such loss of life is bad enough, but Japan has also just lost 20 percent of its electric generating capacity. And I’ll go out on a limb here and predict that none of those 11 reactors will re-enter service again, they’ve been so compromised.

posted by loquacious at 10:13 PM on March 12, 2011 [8 favorites]

I think there may be translation issues going on involving the term "meltdown," or just an imprecision in terminology. As warbaby says, there's a long distance from "damaged by heat" to "melted to liquid metal," but news sourced in Japan are using the term roshin youyuu -- which I've seen translated as "meltdown" in several places -- to describe the heat damage that has already happened.
posted by Jeanne at 10:13 PM on March 12, 2011 [3 favorites]

which in the case of the GE-designed reactors are located on the roof, possibly making them vulnerable.

Ya, I noticed that in the New York Times graphic (not exactly the roof, but way up high). Considering the explosion that did happen, it must be a problem.
posted by Chuckles at 10:13 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Really, in the case of the outer building, if the inner containment is breached then having the outer building intact would mean jack-diddly-poop, aka nothing. Losing the outer building, with respect to containment of a possible meltdown outside of the inner containment, is a moot point.

The fact that there is a condition to cause explosions is never good, but still, she's holding and that's what matters. Not only is she holding, but she's holding in the face of things she obviously wasn't foreseen to experience (see battery power failing, 9.0 magnitude, etc). Testament to the usage of a proper safety factor and planning for aging effects from the engineers of the past.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:16 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

The coolant presumed to be sodium polyborate?

TEPCO says "sea water and boric acid" in their English-language press release.
posted by zippy at 10:17 PM on March 12, 2011

Here's a random question -- why do they build these things so big that one reactor melting down would be completely catastrophic?

Is it possible to build a smaller plant with less of a critical mass of Uranium and Plutonium?
posted by empath at 10:18 PM on March 12, 2011

Lots of small reactors (of the same design as the big one), I believe, would result in more deaths, as there would be more points of failure.

They would be harder to regulate and would require even more trained staff to monitor and operate. Each event might be less bad than a big reactor, but odds are you'd have more of them, and the sum of events would be worse.
posted by zippy at 10:21 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

So...do the Japanese store all their spent on-site like we do? Anybody hear about the condition of the spent fuel pool? Are the older fuel rods shipped elsewhere, or do they just keep 'em stacked in a corner of the employee parking lot?
posted by ryanrs at 10:21 PM on March 12, 2011

That the evacuation radius appears to have been extended may merely be a precautionary measure, or it may be indication that meltdowns (with all the vagueness of that term) are actually underway.

Initially, the Japanese government claimed no radiation was released. Then some was released, but a safe amount. And then some radiation was being released, but there was no change in the measured amount of radioactivity around the plant.

Now the government has been making last-ditch attempts to shut down the cores, some of which may have already partially melted down, according to the NYT, and now more reactors may be having serious cooling problems.

Radioactivity levels outside the plant have now reached over twice the legal limit per hour. The number of workers exposed to dangerous levels of radiation has shot up from 4 to 160, three of which are suffering "full-on radiation sickness".

It seems, perhaps, that the main source of information on this has been not so straightforward with its people or with countries downwind, not only about the risks but about the state of what appears to be a consistently worsening nuclear disaster.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:22 PM on March 12, 2011 [12 favorites]

empath: absolutely, but this reactor was built in the late 60's. there are much better solutions at the present moment, and i've seen it said that Unit #1 was scheduled to go dark at the end of the month.
posted by Mach5 at 10:22 PM on March 12, 2011

I'm too young to be familiar with The China Syndrome when it first came out. Was this really the premise? Because it's completely idiotic.

Yep, and yep, it's pretty idiotic. But they didn't know as much about the earth's core and mantle back then, and to put that in perspective - more than a few respectable scientists were worried that the first nuclear test at Trinity might be hot enough to ignite the atmosphere. I mean, all of it. And start a run away reaction that snuffed out all life on the earth.

Obviously they went and tested the gadget anyway.

Sure, if the core of a dozen reactors melt down and burrow straight through the crust into the earth and actually reach magma - and the magma doesn't come spouting back out like a new volcano, well... that wouldn't really be too bad. The cores would melt into the magma/mantle, disperse nicely and that would pretty much be that. Geological time scale disposal, far out of the reach of humans. And more or less for free.

But it's examples like these kinds of retrospectively ridiculous thoughts that give me pause whenever an expert starts talking in terms of absolutes like "This will never fail, because we've thought of everything." We're still learning stuff. This reactor is just an object lesson in how much we're still learning, and how little we knew 40-50 years ago, and how much more we need to learn.

And how "good enough" often really isn't unless you're drunk and/or mad and playing horseshoes and hand-grenades.
posted by loquacious at 10:22 PM on March 12, 2011 [10 favorites]

One point from above: genpatsu shinsai is not just "nuclear disaster," it's the specific term for a nuclear incident caused by seismic forces. Ishibashi coined it himself; more here from the Times, wrt the 2007 Niigata 6.8 quake.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 10:23 PM on March 12, 2011 [2 favorites]

The 160 number for people exposed to radiation actually includes a number of patients and staff at a nearby hospital who were outdoors when the roof blew.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:24 PM on March 12, 2011

Good enough. I'm glad Japan is in the hands of you experts.
posted by BeerFilter at 10:26 PM on March 12, 2011

Is it possible to build a smaller plant with less of a critical mass of Uranium and Plutonium?

I imagine yes, though the safety really depends on the exact design. I imagine that one that depended on a powered backup for a cooling system would be considered unthinkable.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:26 PM on March 12, 2011

METI minister, news reports ask people to conserve electricity. Planned electricity rationing.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:26 PM on March 12, 2011

Jeanne: I think there may be translation issues going on involving the term "meltdown," or just an imprecision in terminology.
Indeed. A couple of my nuclear engineer friends (somehow I have more than one…I don't know how), as well as @arclight have said that "meltdown" isn't actually a term used by nuclear engineer.
From what I've read, most likely the fuel rods in 1 and 3 have been damaged from fuel rods melting. I doubt anyone (including the engineers trying to cool these things down) could say anything beyond that.

empath: Is it possible to build a smaller plant with less of a critical mass of Uranium and Plutonium?
I remember seeing a couple different plans for small (think 2-3 story building-sized) reactors that would be manufactured completely sealed, shipped by container ship, and literally just dropped onto a pad. When the fuel was spent, they'd be picked up, and shipped back to the manufacturer for reprocessing. These designs were by companies such as GE. From my understanding these would have a very tiny chance of catastrophe because of their size.
posted by thebestsophist at 10:26 PM on March 12, 2011

ryanrs, I'm having trouble finding a decent link, but I'm pretty sure Japan reprocesses spent fuel.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:29 PM on March 12, 2011

It's actually an extremely cost-effective way to deliver clean, reliable power.

..unless your the taxpayer paying to clean-up a nuclear accident, then it's neither cost effective or clean. Platonic ideals of fail-safe technology are rhetorical games that ignore the messy realities of nuclear power.
posted by stbalbach at 10:29 PM on March 12, 2011 [3 favorites]

Yeah, I think I remember lack of reprocessing was a US-specific thing. Pretty stupid, too, in terms of long-term sustainability.
posted by ryanrs at 10:33 PM on March 12, 2011

They are from Japan Nuclear Fuel, Ltd., so take with a grain of salt, but the following two articles detail Japan's nuclear fuel recycling/reprocessing program.

Japan's Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities
Why is Japan Pursuing a "Closed" Nuclear Fuel Cycle?
posted by ob1quixote at 10:33 PM on March 12, 2011

So...do the Japanese store all their spent on-site like we do?

No, the Rokkasho Reprocessing plant in Aomori is designed to take the spent fuel but has been a politically contentious project (NIMBY) and is currently still in development afaik.
posted by gen at 10:34 PM on March 12, 2011

"Melting to China", as described in a previous comment, IS idiotic. Gravity doesn't work that way except in cartoons.
posted by ryanrs at 10:36 PM on March 12, 2011 [4 favorites]

Is electricity much cheaper in France or Japan than in countries that rely on coal?
posted by ryanrs at 10:38 PM on March 12, 2011

It was the '70s, and yes, China was on the opposite side of the earth in the '70s...
posted by atomicmedia at 10:39 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Platonic ideals of fail-safe technology are rhetorical games that ignore the messy realities of nuclear power.

Yes and no. The problem is that our current sources of energy (I'm mostly talking about coal), have messy realities that are, honestly, a lot worse than nuclear. The difference is that we don't calculate the environmental costs of coal because it is diffused over every single second the plant is in operation. But a traditional coal fire plant, even the newest cleanest ones that are going up will produce more radiation through exhaust in a single year, than the average nuclear power plant will in its lifetime. With all other variables constant, I would choose the environmental impact of a modern nuclear plant over a modern coal fire plant any day. Does that mean I'd want all nuclear all the time? Hell, no. But we have a certain way of life, and that includes a shit ton of energy, and our beloved renewables aren't going to be able to keep up with demand any time soon (although I seriously wish it could).

I'm hoping that well-regulated nuclear power is to world energy consumption to what hybrids are to cars: a stepping stone away to reduce fossil fuel consumption until we can finish getting the real solution in place.
posted by thebestsophist at 10:40 PM on March 12, 2011 [24 favorites]

The sixth photo in this photo set (posted in the other thread by Catch) shows a before-and-after aerial satellite view of the Fukushima facility.
posted by hat at 10:44 PM on March 12, 2011

What is the "real solution"?

And with the Leaf and the Volt coming out soon, there's no real need for hybrids anymore, (other than to protect oil company profit margins).
posted by Windopaene at 10:44 PM on March 12, 2011

Another question: if there was a Chernobyl-style meltdown of graphite-moderated reactor in Japan, how long would it take for the fallout to reach the US West coast?
posted by ryanrs at 10:45 PM on March 12, 2011

Any news on Japan's other nuclear reactors?
The one closest to the epicenter and tsunamis, Onagawa, was fortunately (and probably purposely) built high enough to not be affected by the incoming waves. Nevertheless it had a fire that was later put out.

And Kashiwazaki-Kariwa was damaged in a 2007 earthquake, and therefore closed down. It was just reopened last month! Fortunately it was retrofitted to do better in earthquakes.

I assume no news is good news when it comes to these reactors.
posted by eye of newt at 10:45 PM on March 12, 2011

And I thought coal was A-OK. I keep hearing ads on the radio about "Clean Coal".

/sarcasm
posted by Windopaene at 10:46 PM on March 12, 2011

ryanrs: "Another question: if there was a Chernobyl-style meltdown of graphite-moderated reactor in Japan, how long would it take for the fallout to reach the US West coast"

Well, Cliff Mass isn't modeling that, nor does he say what the particles he is modeling are, but have a look.

His charts end on 3/22.
posted by mwhybark at 10:48 PM on March 12, 2011

Gravity doesn't work that way except in cartoons.

I knew I shoulda taken that right toin at Albakoiky!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:48 PM on March 12, 2011 [6 favorites]

> which in the case of the GE-designed reactors are located on the roof, possibly making them vulnerable.

Um, no. The spent rods are kept in a containment pool at ground level, separate from the reactor facility. I heard specific discussion of the spent reactor pool at one of the government press conferences, although there have been so many it would be hard to track it down.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:49 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

ryanrs Another question: if there was a Chernobyl-style meltdown of graphite-moderated reactor in Japan, how long would it take for the fallout to reach the US West coast?

A couple to several days. Check out this North Pacific jet stream wind prediction model.
posted by hat at 10:49 PM on March 12, 2011

All I know about The China Syndrome is what I've read in these two threads. Didn't know it was by Feynman.
posted by ryanrs at 10:50 PM on March 12, 2011

But, by the way, that doesn't address the effects of dilution or dissipation and rain-out. The Pacific is a really big ocean.
posted by hat at 10:50 PM on March 12, 2011

eye of newt: "I assume no news is good news when it comes to these reactors"

In those specific instances, probably so. However, it's been noted that TEPCO uses omission to convey negative facts in their blow-by-blow updates on the current situation.
posted by mwhybark at 10:51 PM on March 12, 2011

There's been some mention on NHK of elevated radiation levels at Onagawa. This TEPCO graph seems to indicate fairly steady but elevated levels of radiation; I'm reading the Google autotranslated version, so someone with better written Japanese will have to break it down further.

There has been speculation on Twitter that what the detectors at Onagawa are picking up is radiation released from Fukushima Daiichi, which is 100km away.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 10:52 PM on March 12, 2011

if there was a Chernobyl-style meltdown of graphite-moderated reactor in Japan, how long would it take for the fallout to reach the US West coast?

About 2-6 days. It depends a lot on altitude of the particles in the cloud, how much the jetstream is meandering and the speed of the current.

When you look at records or simulations of the jetstream it looks a lot like a river like the Mississippi with oxbow-like activity happening, just much faster. Or similar to a rivulet of water down an inclined plane. It's really dynamic and chaotic and wiggles back and forth between the arctic circle and the equator.
posted by loquacious at 10:56 PM on March 12, 2011

However, it's been noted that TEPCO uses omission to convey negative facts in their blow-by-blow updates on the current situation.

That is one of the most semantically meaningless sentences I have ever read.

I encourage people to read the TEPCO Press Release website and read their reports, which are issued mostly hourly, frequently more often. See if you can find omitted negative facts (whatever the hell that means).
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:56 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

In a nutshell, wasn't Chernobyl actually on fire?
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:58 PM on March 12, 2011

hat: "But, by the way, that doesn't address the effects of dilution or dissipation and rain-out. The Pacific is a really big ocean."

Correct, and Professor Mass clearly indicates that he does not expect any actual threat from a release event. It's 6000 miles, farther than the distance the Chernobyl plume had measurable effects, or possibly about the farthest it did, I have seen different information.

Here's a look at it that might be helpful.
posted by mwhybark at 10:59 PM on March 12, 2011

You can. Earlier, when the plant was OK, it said, "there has been no loss of coolant" or "no damage to the core". On the reactors going bad, it didn't say, "there has been loss of coolant" or "bad things are happening", those original phrases just weren't present.
posted by Windopaene at 10:59 PM on March 12, 2011 [2 favorites]

There is no reason to believe this will be the case, the containment is built to withstand these events.

That is absolutely not true. It wasn't built to withstand an earthquake of this magnitude.

I've been trying to figure this out, but I can't quite figure out what the intensity of the quake was at the plant. If the design limits were exceeded, it was not by much.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:00 PM on March 12, 2011

@Windopaene: I have no friggin' clue.
Likely, a clever combination of renewables coupled together with much more intelligent building construction techniques (building construction and maintenance actually uses 60% of the country's energy, so imagine how much energy would be saved by just installing double-pained glass, citation), other energy consumption reduction programs including mass transit.

My issue with the Volt, Leaf, and Teslas is that while they are clever and neat, they don't match our lifestyle, which means it will take a lot of effort to get people to adopt them. We are used to being able to drive and just pull into a gas station when we're out of fuel, push a couple buttons and we're good to go for another few hundred miles. Electric cars are a step back from that.

Sure, a few hundred miles a charge is good enough for most trips, but the idea of having to remember to plug in every night, but if you forget, or need to drive just a little bit further, or if you live in an apartment complex and your parking spot doesn't have a plug near by (which…let's be serious, most don't), you're fresh out of luck. (Yes, I know about quick charging and battery swapping, my point stands, there's a lot of extra effort.)

Personally, my bet is with the Honda Clarity and hydrogen (it has been ever since that episode of Scientific American so many years ago). You drive for a few hundred miles, you stop at a gas station, press a few buttons and you're good to go. It's the same, it's what people are used to, we don't need to install electric plugs at every single parking spot in every single apartment complex and office building. It just works.

But I digress, we's talkin' 'bout nukes.
posted by thebestsophist at 11:01 PM on March 12, 2011

(I realize Feynman didn't write disaster movies. Should have included eye-roll emoticon.)
posted by ryanrs at 11:02 PM on March 12, 2011

charlie don't surf: "However, it's been noted that TEPCO uses omission to convey negative facts in their blow-by-blow updates on the current situation.

That is one of the most semantically meaningless sentences I have ever read.

I encourage people to read the TEPCO Press Release website and read their reports, which are issued mostly hourly, frequently more often. See if you can find omitted negative facts (whatever the hell that means)"

Well, GOSH, that sure is a respectful tone there chuckles! Thanks for keepin' it real!
posted by mwhybark at 11:02 PM on March 12, 2011

I've been trying to figure this out, but I can't quite figure out what the intensity of the quake was at the plant. If the design limits were exceeded, it was not by much.

The Fukushima plants were designed to withstand a direct hit from a 7.9 earthquake. An 8.9 quake is about 10 times the intensity of a 7.9 (it's a logarithmic scale, each point is 10x). Consider it a miracle of engineering that they didn't fall to pieces instantly.
posted by charlie don't surf at 11:03 PM on March 12, 2011 [2 favorites]

The Fukushima plants were designed to withstand a direct hit from a 7.9 earthquake. An 8.9 quake is about 10 times the intensity of a 7.9 (it's a logarithmic scale, each point is 10x). Consider it a miracle of engineering that they didn't fall to pieces instantly.

This was not a direct hit.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:04 PM on March 12, 2011 [2 favorites]

An 8.9 quake is about 10 times the intensity of a 7.9 (it's a logarithmic scale, each point is 10x)

Each point is 32x not 10x.
posted by Justinian at 11:04 PM on March 12, 2011 [8 favorites]

Well, we are talking about energy.

We are getting a Leaf in a month or so. Theoretically, there will be quick-charge stations from here, (Seattle), to Portland and beyond, so even long distance travel will be possible. Saying they "don't match our lifestyle" is a cop out. Our lifestyle is a bit on the bogus side, and we will need to change it to progress.
posted by Windopaene at 11:05 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Each point is 32x not 10x.

I stand corrected. But the point stands, the reactors were very close to the epicenter, and withstood more far punishment than their design limits.
posted by charlie don't surf at 11:06 PM on March 12, 2011

Wow, I didn't realize the earthquake hit directly under the powerplants. I thought it was out to sea a bit.

** this is tongue in cheek. Assume that 'designed to take 7.9' is valid. What exactly did the plant see? And you haven't yet provided a citation for this number and the safety factor used by the designers...
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:06 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

And with the Leaf and the Volt coming out soon, there's no real need for hybrids anymore, (other than to protect oil company profit margins).

Give the drum-beating a rest? Stop polluting the thread?
posted by ambient2 at 11:06 PM on March 12, 2011 [3 favorites]

Would a breach of containment by excess pressure explosion be worse than one caused by a chemical explosion or not, for this type of reactor? I have a hard time using my somewhat basic physics knowledge trying to compare how the two things would spread all the nasty stuff around, particularly at the kind of insane pressures that seem to be involved to cause such a breach.
posted by Iosephus at 11:07 PM on March 12, 2011

thebestsophist, I agree coal is a disaster but sheesh, I just can't support nuclear disaster instead.
posted by stbalbach at 11:08 PM on March 12, 2011

It would be local. It would really nasty, but local.

I don't think you understand how huge the Chernobyl exclusion zone is.

Not a reasonable comparison. At Chornobyl, irradiated graphite burned for two weeks, and the majority of the Zone is wherever the smoke went. The only graphite at Fukushima is in pencils. The parts of the Zone that were contaminated by other means are the reasonable basis of comparison, and they are vastly smaller.
posted by eritain at 11:11 PM on March 12, 2011 [4 favorites]

Somewhere, Jack Lemmon is spinning in his grave, in an idiotic, cartoonish manner.
posted by phaedon at 11:13 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Iosephus, a breach is a breach. I'm not sure one is worse than the other. Also, I don't think a hydrogen explosion can happen inside the reaction vessel itself (no oxygen).
posted by ryanrs at 11:13 PM on March 12, 2011

This is a good and informative thread, and it would be awesome if people could not be assholes when pointing out wrongness/disagreements with other people, so as not to dilute the goodness. Thank you all.
posted by rtha at 11:16 PM on March 12, 2011 [3 favorites]

Assume that 'designed to take 7.9' is valid. What exactly did the plant see? And you haven't yet provided a citation for this number and the safety factor used by the designers...

Source: TEPCO documents reviewed by the Wall Street Journal.

I am checking the USGS Pager map, which represents the intensity but on a scale only loosely associated with the Richter Scale. Looks like Fukushima was just within the Category VIII area.
posted by charlie don't surf at 11:16 PM on March 12, 2011

If the vessel is breached, the cooling water electrolyzes into H and O2, which then creates the explosive mixture. Read that somewhere, can't find the source though.
posted by Windopaene at 11:17 PM on March 12, 2011

I stand corrected. But the point stands, the reactors were very close to the epicenter, and withstood more far punishment than their design limits.

I'm gonna need a link for that, I can't find one either way.

Unit 1 was designed for a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s2) and a response spectrum based on the 1952 Kern County earthquake.[7] All units were inspected after the 1978 Miyagi earthquake when the ground acceleration was 0.125 g (1.22 m/s2) for 30 seconds, but no damage to the critical parts of the reactor was discovered.[7]

The plant was in a .18 to .34 range so it's hard to say exactly to what degree it was exceeded for sure.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:17 PM on March 12, 2011

However, it's been noted that TEPCO uses omission to convey negative facts in their blow-by-blow updates on the current situation.

I was incorrect when I wrote this. I was remembering a discussion of a different press release in the other thread, and it was NOT the blow-by-blow TEPCO info that was noted to use omission as an information-management tactic.

yeesh, nested-in thread quotes using that metafilter quoting greasemonkey script are confusing!

Charlie, it would have been more productive to politely ask me for a cite than to engage with my original post in the manner you did.
posted by mwhybark at 11:17 PM on March 12, 2011

I don't think a hydrogen explosion can happen inside the reaction vessel itself (no oxygen)

I can't answer this authoritatively, but there is oxygen in the seawater currently being pumped in, and the fuel is uranium oxide.

Here's an excerpt from the pdf on Boiling Water Reactors on how hydrogen combustion is normally suppressed:

In addition, following a loss of coolant accident, the temperature of fuel cladding could rise
and hydrogen could be generated by a water-metal reaction, which could impair the
containment integrity due to hydrogen gas combustion. In order to prevent such a case, BWR
containments are kept inert with nitrogen gas (Mark-III type containment is designed not to
use the nitrogen gas, but it is not adopted in Japan) during normal operation, and the 11
flammability control system to prevent hydrogen combustion by recombining the generated
hydrogen gas with oxygen gas.

I presume some or all of these systems are not fully functional at this point.
posted by zippy at 11:20 PM on March 12, 2011

If the vessel is breached, the cooling water electrolyzes into H and O2, which then creates the explosive mixture.

Hot water doesn't really do that (unless you're talking about plasma). But at a certain temperature, the fuel rods' zirconium cladding will oxidize, stripping the oxygen from the water. The resulting hydrogen can't burn unless released from the reaction vessel, where it can mix with air.
posted by ryanrs at 11:22 PM on March 12, 2011

I'm hoping that well-regulated nuclear power is to world energy consumption to what hybrids are to cars

The two problems for nuclear energy are rooted in that there is simply too much money at stake to ensure doing things safely:

1. The technology is as much of an afterthought to nuclear operators as safety.
2. Nuclear power has never been well-regulated, and never will be.

After every disaster, what becomes clear is that regulatory bodies are almost completely ineffectual in their job of protecting people who live around and downwind nuclear facilities, in the events leading up to the disaster.

As a recent example, in the United States, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) allowed Entergy to keep running a nuclear power plant in Vermont, despite numerous and egregious safety violations.

After the company lied the NRC and to Vermont about tritium leaks, the state of Vermont had to step in and forcibly shut the plant down. Entergy still denies any responsibility.

If web chat board proponents ran nuclear power plants, it might work. But the historical reality, one that plays out repeatedly, is that nuclear power is just not safe in public or private hands. Safety costs money, which is why safety is off the table.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:22 PM on March 12, 2011 [12 favorites]

Unit 1 was designed for a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s2)..

Ah that is a number I can work with. Examining the USGS Peak Ground Acceleration map, Fukushima clearly exceeded 0.2g, but it is not clear by how much, I'd estimate maybe .22 by the look of the map.

And mwhybark, I still don't know any way to engage with the semantic difficulties in your post. I don't see how anyone could cite omissions of negative information (whatever the hell that means).
posted by charlie don't surf at 11:24 PM on March 12, 2011

charlie don't surf: "And mwhybark, I still don't know any way to engage with the semantic difficulties in your post. I don't see how anyone could cite omissions of negative information (whatever the hell that means)"

Classy.
posted by mwhybark at 11:26 PM on March 12, 2011

Thank you Blazecock for summing up what I've been trying to say in these threads for several days, in a most eloquent manner.

Theoretically, nuclear power is an awesome panacea. Just never seems to work out that way in practice. Reading the Chernobyl wikapedia page, it's mind boggling at the lack of understanding, training, and following established procedures that took place.
posted by Windopaene at 11:26 PM on March 12, 2011

charlie don't surf: From that link you just posted:

The company said in the documents that 7.9 was the highest magnitude for which they tested the safety for their No. 1 and No. 2 nuclear power plants in Fukushima.

This statement =! the plants are only designed for 7.9 magnitude quakes. It may indeed be that is the designed max, but is not necessarily true based upon this statement alone. That's like saying a car was tested up to 100 mph. That doesn't mean it won't go 120 mph...

As to the logic behind "why didn't they test it up to the maximum then?" I could only venture to say that it is probably VERY difficult to actually simulate this intense of an occurrence, even in a test environment. Again, I'm speculating.

As to the magnitude links, I can't really decipher much regarding magnitude from that page and will wait to hear more accurate information. I don't doubt your accuracy though, so what does that make the magnitude at Fukushima, according to that link anyway.

Thanks for the citations though, it does add to the information pool.
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:27 PM on March 12, 2011

However, it's been noted that TEPCO uses omission to convey negative facts in their blow-by-blow updates on the current situation. ... I was incorrect when I wrote this

Actually, I believe you were correct. I noticed this on TEPCO's (almost) hourly updates on its reactor units.

From the other thread, I've noticed that with the six reactor units at Fukushima-1, TEPCO generates a report for each, and for the good units you'll see:

"However, we do not believe
there is leakage of reactor coolant in the containment vessel at this moment"

You won't see any statement about leakage for the troubled units.
posted by zippy at 11:28 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Windoaene: Saying they "don't match our lifestyle" is a cop out. Our lifestyle is a bit on the bogus side, and we will need to change it to progress.

I agree entirely, we really need to change the way our whole system works, but as a political philosopher, policy wonk (I used to work in a DC science policy nonprofit), user experience designer, and hobby anthropologist, I just don't see it happening for the majority of people in the timeframe needed to save the world (I say that without irony).

While it is easy to install quick-charge stations along I-5 from Portland to Seattle, it isn't as easy to do it from Portland to Los Angeles, or Seattle to Chicago. We have hundreds of thousands of miles of road (you'd think I got paid every times I used the word "of" with that phrase), and to pull enough current to run quick charge stations along all of them is impossible.

Furthermore, electric is fine for personal vehicles, but almost completely useless for commercial and farm equipment which means we're going to need a gas fuel no matter what (though really, we should be moving more stuff cross-country using just-in-time planning on trains instead of trucks). Unless we come up with battery systems with capacities orders of magnitude higher than what we have now, the use-cases for electric is powerfully limited. Chemical-based energy is just far more efficient and will be for the foreseeable future.

/derail

stalbach: I agree, I would rather have neither, but given our current level of scientific understanding, and the desperation of our environmental crisis, it looks like we're going to have to choose the lesser of two evils if we want a chance at surviving the next century. Nuclear power can be safe, basically the reason that Fukushima is a problem, is that the ones having issues are 40 year old reactors using 50 year-old designs. ALL of the modern reactors are shutting down safely, just as designed. Does that mean other things can't happen? No, but given the record of well-regulated, well-managed, nuclear power compared to well-regulated, well-managed coal power? (Since the alternatives still won't reasonably be available for decades.) I'm not sure we have a choice, and I'm certainly not holding my breath for cold fusion.
posted by thebestsophist at 11:30 PM on March 12, 2011 [7 favorites]

By the way, if anyone is paying attention @arclight has been spending the last half an hour teaching "How to shut down a nuclear reactor 101," it's absolutely fascinating.
posted by thebestsophist at 11:32 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Ah that is a number I can work with. Examining the USGS Peak Ground Acceleration map, Fukushima clearly exceeded 0.2g, but it is not clear by how much, I'd estimate maybe .22 by the look of the map.

So, safe to say, exceeded but not by much past the tested limits.

Worst case scenario: Containment fails. Core debris ejected into the atmosphere.

Please explain how this occurs.

You have a runaway reaction that melts the uranium into a a white hot slag that melts through the bottom of a containment system which may or may not have been severely damaged by a series of earthquakes. That is what a meltdown is. You really don't know what you are talking about.

I mean, I barely do, but I know more than you, surely. An uncontained meltdown is surely in the realm of possibility here.

I'm just not sure how you get from melting down into the ground and ejecting in to the atmosphere.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:35 PM on March 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

Also, with control rods in place I'm not sure where the runaway reaction is coming from.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:40 PM on March 12, 2011

Once again, consider the explosion in reactor 1.

If the outer shell had still been intactas it was at reactor 1, we can assume there was some hydrogen present in that space, and then if the containment breach occurred, that same explosion would have ejected material into the atmosphere.

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse to obfuscate this?
posted by Windopaene at 11:40 PM on March 12, 2011

If the outer shell had still been intactas it was at reactor 1, we can assume there was some hydrogen present in that space, and then if the containment breach occurred, that same explosion would have ejected material into the atmosphere.

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse to obfuscate this?

It had been explained to you repeatedly that the outer shell was not containment.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:42 PM on March 12, 2011

I guess I'm just hung up on the part where almost nobody has ever been killed, despite the supposedly ineffective NRC.

Yeah, it is also worth pointing out that Japan is the only country that ever had plutonium and uranium devices exploded over major metropolitan areas, and those cities have been continuously inhabited despite intense fallout levels at that time. Of course they didn't know any better...

I was just reading today about "hibakusha," the survivors of the nuclear bombings. These are people who received intense but sub-lethal doses of radiation. The hibakusha, oddly enough, are notorious for long lives, but current medical statistics indicate only 1% of them have long term illnesses directly attributable to radiation. It is also asserted that only 1% of them died earlier than expected per actuarial tables, but I did not see any stats on how much earlier they died. Of course there is a lot of jiggery-pokery about these stats, as the pool of survivors were presumably inherently tougher than the dead, and it is notoriously difficult to get certification that your illnesses are attributable to radiation from the attack.

Oh and while I'm at it, I feel like pointing out that the Fukushima plants are on the coast, and prevailing winds are seaward. So generally, any dispersal of radiation will immediately drift out to sea, not directly over inhabited areas.
posted by charlie don't surf at 11:43 PM on March 12, 2011 [4 favorites]

Doesn't matter, though the interactive diagram described that as "secondary containment". But if there's hydrogen there, and the primary containment fails, there's going to be an explosion, regardless of what you call the outer shell.
posted by Windopaene at 11:44 PM on March 12, 2011

Then why did the first one blow up if all that hydrogen was being vented to the atmosphere?
posted by Windopaene at 11:47 PM on March 12, 2011

I'm just not sure how you get from melting down into the ground and ejecting in to the atmosphere.

Hot gases rise very quickly. A melting reactor core temps range from around 1,000-5,000 F, and can get much hotter than that. Roughly guessing from what I've read over the years we're talking as high as 15,000 F or more. I'm not sure if there's an upper boundary to that temperature. The only boundary would be at what point the melting or burning core materials turn sublimate immediately to gas, or if plasma if formed.

In all cases you have extremely hot, radioactive gas, dust, smoke and particulate easily lifting itself above the much, much cooler atmosphere.

The blast from Chernobyl wasn't what really injected the bulk of the material into the upper atmosphere. It was merely heat, and lots of it, turning metal and graphite and fuel into gas.

Same goes for a nuclear blast. It's not the shock wave or explosion that lifts the plume into the air, it's the heat of the gases and fireball, which is why it forms a torus/donut shape as the fireball rises. It's a smoke ring. You can replicate this at home with a stick of burning incense or a cigarette.

The same also goes for volcanoes. Again, it's not the blast that lifts the bulk of the ash cloud and debris but the heat. Even with an extreme volcanic blast like Mt. St. Helens it was the superheated mud and ash and steam cloud that lifted it into the stratosphere.

Let's bring the scale back down to human size. A simple campfire or bonfire on a calm day can lift smoke thousands of feet into the air, or until it reaches an inversion layer. Unless it's a really big fire, then it punches right through the inversion layer.

And remember as a rule of thumb, the higher in altitude you go the colder it gets. This can accelerate a hot gas/smoke plume to incredible heights.
posted by loquacious at 11:47 PM on March 12, 2011 [4 favorites]

So, safe to say, exceeded but not by much past the tested limits.

No, by my back-of-the-envelope calculations, it exceeded design limits by about 20%. I wouldn't characterize that as "not much." It is also not clear to me whether these ground acceleration measurements are on a linear scale (I assumed that in my calculation).
posted by charlie don't surf at 11:48 PM on March 12, 2011

zippy: "Actually, I believe you were correct. I noticed this on TEPCO's (almost) hourly updates on its reactor units."

Huh, well, good to know. I scrubbed the other thread looking for you noting that and couldn't put my finger on it. Thanks for chiming in.
posted by mwhybark at 11:48 PM on March 12, 2011

Then why did the first one blow up if all that hydrogen was being vented to the atmosphere?

Because it was in the building.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:49 PM on March 12, 2011

Then why did the first one blow up if all that hydrogen was being vented to the atmosphere? It wasn't', because there were walls. Now there is a wall (roof?) missing, so any new hydrogen is going straight out into the air.
posted by exlotuseater at 11:50 PM on March 12, 2011

Well, I got here rather late. My brother (a nuclear student) was told by his department head that this site would be a best source to monitor for accurate and up to date information regarding these events.
posted by polyhedron at 11:55 PM on March 12, 2011 [3 favorites]

who do their driving within short distances of their house

I'm no proponent of electric cars (as I think designing our cities around driving brings with it plenty of other problems: car accidents, obesity... talk radio). But I don't see why the 100-mile (or slightly less) charge distance would be a problem. Who commutes more than 100 miles each direction? Whose errands are more than 100 miles? Yes, if someone's lifestyle involved driving 3 hours to see grandma once a month, it wouldn't work for them. But I personally could live with a 100-mile trip distance and then for the occasional longer trip, I could either rent a car, or plan a lunch break at the 100-mile mark.

Sorry to continue the electric car derail. I have learned a lot from these links, and I appreciate everyone's efforts to keep this thread civil and informative.
posted by salvia at 11:57 PM on March 12, 2011 [3 favorites]

While I'm on the topic of translating TEPCO press releases, I'll also note that what many of us would regard as an explosion of the building around Fukushima-1 Unit-1, TEPCO rather conservatively described as "the explosive sound and white smoke."
posted by zippy at 12:00 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

(and by translating here, I mean translating sometimes soft English-language statements into likely facts).
posted by zippy at 12:03 AM on March 13, 2011

Also, regarding venting, standard procedure is to vent through a device that removes radioactivity from the released gas. I don't know if they were doing that when the explosion occurred, or if they were venting straight into the atmosphere.
posted by zippy at 12:05 AM on March 13, 2011

Also, with control rods in place I'm not sure where the runaway reaction is coming from.

The control rods are probably melting. If they're not melting, they're certainly oxidizing, which is where the hydrogen came from. But if they haven't been able to keep the core cool enough, they're melting.

When they melt, the liquid metals exit the core and pool at the bottom as molten slag, likely taking the fuel rod packages with it. Corium is the name for this slag, as in "core" because after it melts it's no longer tidy, discrete packages of fuel rods and control rods and support structure. It's an unknown mix of fuel, metal, neutron absorbing material, cladding, ceramic and whatever else is in the core.

It's probably helpful to point out that control rods and fuel rods are not at all large in diameter. They're very thin. Depending on the reactor a "fuel rod" is actually a package of about a dozen small, thin tubes packaged together in a holder with a "bail" or handle at one end for attaching a hoist crane to and a support structure at the bottom that mounts to the bottom of the reactor vessel. In the Mark 1 the control rods are inserted through the bottom of the reactor through specially designed ports that are theoretically supposed to melt and/or ablate to self-seal when/if the core melts.

So modern reactors aren't monolithic blocks of metal or by any means solid. It's more like a stack of uncooked spaghetti strands with a fair amount of open space between the fuel rods and control rods. In that open space circulates either water or tubes for water or other coolant or moderators, depending on the reactor.

These fuel rod and control rod structures are actually rather fragile. If I handed you a fuel rod tube outside of a bundled fuel pack you could bend it with your bare hands. This is one of the reasons why the fuel and control rods are vertical - because they get so hot if they were horizontal they would sag and lose structural form.

If the control rods have melted, or if any portion of the core has melted into corium it can go subcritical and still be actively fissioning, just not at critical self-sustaining levels. Critical self-sustaining levels are possible, too, for a more dramatic meltdown.

But a complete meltdown or uncontrolled criticality doesn't need to happen for it to get hot enough to continue to melt, or to burn, or to form gas hot enough to inject into the atmosphere and rise like a hot air balloon.
posted by loquacious at 12:06 AM on March 13, 2011 [7 favorites]

thebestsophist writes "My issue with the Volt, Leaf, and Teslas is that while they are clever and neat, they don't match our lifestyle, which means it will take a lot of effort to get people to adopt them. We are used to being able to drive and just pull into a gas station when we're out of fuel, push a couple buttons and we're good to go for another few hundred miles. Electric cars are a step back from that."

Uh, the Volt allows you to do exactly that. You can cruse to your heart's content without plugging in as long as you have regular access to gas stations.

Blazecock Pileon writes "But the historical reality, one that plays out repeatedly, is that nuclear power is just not safe in public or private hands. Safety costs money, which is why safety is off the table."

Even if that was true - it is possible to design and build nuclear power plants that are fail safe short of active sabotage - the alternative is worse no matter how you measure it: coal power.
posted by Mitheral at 12:07 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

loquacious, none of that is going to happen when they are dumping seawater on it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:09 AM on March 13, 2011

(and by translating here, I mean translating sometimes soft English-language statements into likely facts).

That's not translating, that's interpreting. And when I say interpreting, I mean "guessing."

Realize that these documents were originally written in Japanese and translated to English. I have experience translating Japanese technical documents into English, and they are full of indirect expressions and circumlocutions that would seem like prevarication or outright omissions, but are standard language and easily interpretable in the original source document. I urge you not to attempt to read between the lines of a translated document. You will see what is not there.
posted by charlie don't surf at 12:12 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

NHK reported partial meltdown likely at reactor 3.
posted by polyhedron at 12:13 AM on March 13, 2011

Basic question: I'd had a mental picture of a containment vessel, secondary containment, and then some sort of sheet-metal building with few structural characteristics (the building that was damaged by an explosion), but the NYT images make it look like this building is part of secondary containment. Can someone clarify -- two structurally-strong containment layers, or just one?
posted by salvia at 12:13 AM on March 13, 2011

loquacious, none of that is going to happen when they are dumping seawater on it.

You keep using those words - like "none" and "never". I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by loquacious at 12:14 AM on March 13, 2011 [7 favorites]

..the alternative is worse no matter how you measure it: coal power.

BTW, here's an article I ran across today, with photographs showing what that was like.
posted by charlie don't surf at 12:15 AM on March 13, 2011

loquacious, none of that is going to happen when they are dumping seawater on it.

You keep using those words - like "none" and "never". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Let's go with the odds are slim, much like the odds of the local dam breaking.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:17 AM on March 13, 2011

By the way, if anyone is paying attention @arclight has been spending the last half an hour teaching "How to shut down a nuclear reactor 101," it's absolutely fascinating.

Yes, this is brilliant, and worth reposting because it answers a bunch of questions upthread, so here is @arclight's series of Tweets, which I've edited together:

@arclight hey what's a 'fuel cladding failure' & is that what's worrysome at #Fukushima #1 ?

Nuclear fuel in a BWR is composed of three parts: uranium oxide pellets (fuel), zirconium alloy tubes (cladding) & structural bits. The fuel is sealed in the 12-15' long tubes, the tubes are arranged in a square grid & held together by a light frame & put in a shroud. The shroud is basically a square sheet metal tube (also made of zirconium alloy) which keeps water flowing up along the fuel. The fuel is arranged in a roughly circular grid to form a big cylinder inside the reactor vessel. Cold water enters the side of the vessel, goes down to the bottom & up past the fuel where it's heated to boiling temperatures (so) the reactor pressure is normally ~1000 psi so boiling temperature is ~565F or so.

The steam water mix goes through a twisty path called a steam dryer to keep water droplets from being carried into the steam lines. The (dry) steam goes into the high pressure turbine, expands & spins the turbine, then goes into the low pressure side into the condenser. The condenser is a huge heat exchanger right under the turbine that carries waste heat out of the plant. Condensed steam is pumped back to the reactor and the whole cycle begins anew. This will thrill the Buddhists in the audience :) So in a quick shutdown, the control rods enter from the bottom of the core and latch in place so they can't fall out.

Why the bottom? (DUDE! GRAVITY!?) The steam dryer is in the way. 2000psi water pushes them up & in. Also, if the control rod drive (CRD) pumps fail, you can vent water which sucks the rods in. Very elegant & counterintuitive design.

So shutting down the reactor is pretty easy & foolproof; it has to be. The next thing that happens is shutting the valves to the turbine.Once you stop the reactor, you stop making steam and you'll start sucking water into the turbine which is Very Very Bad. How bad? 42" turbine blades spinning at 1800 RPM breaking apart and flying around the turbine building bad. Bye bye turbine.

So when the rods go in, the main steam isolation valves (MSIVs) shut. But now there's no place for the water being pumped in to go. So at that point you switch to RHR (residual heat removal) which is a safety-related heat exchanger system to remove the decay heat. Recapping from yesterday: Decay heat starts ~10% and drops over the next few days. It's this decay heat that damaged the fuel at Unit 1.

The original question was "what is fuel cladding? This long-winded exposition is getting to that. I've avoided using the term cladding because it's jargon for fuel tube.

What has happened at Fukushima is that after an hour all AC power was lost at the plant and systems like RHR, pumps & valves had no power. There was one steam-driven pump called RCIC that supplied water to the core but it failed.

[I'll talk about containment pressure but I have to head to Google for a second.]

So with no electricity & no cooling the water in the reactor began to boil away and pressurized the reactor vessel. There are safety relief valves (SRVs) that open automatically at high vessel pressure and release steam into the suppression pool. The steam exits through pipes underwater in the big donut-shaped part of the containment. It's released underwater so the steam condense. If you just dumped dry steam into the containment it would pressurize & break open. Bad. Not containing anything after that. So it's important to keep water on the core, to keep containment pressure low, and keep water in the suppression pool from boiling.
If the suppression pool boils, you can't condense steam and containment pressurized. So in an accident, you see what your three top goals are: cover & cool the reactor, cool containment to keep pressure down.

Fukushima Daiichi unit 1 could not do that after they lost all AC power an hour after shutdown.
So they depressurized once they ran out of high pressure injection sources (RCIC, HPCI, CRD pumps). Then they manually controlled containment pressure by periodically venting. That led to early small radioactive releases. As time went on, the core inventory (water in the core) boiled off and the core uncovered. Bad because steam doesn't cool as well as water. They tried hooking up their fire suppression water system to the reactor but could not pump in enough water to make up for the boiling. Eventually the fuel tubes (cladding) broke open. This is the onset of core damage. Not meltdown. Core damage.

Eventually the steam & Zr cladding start chemically reacting to form hydrogen gas (EXPLOSIVE!), ZrO and more heat (dammit). (so) you see the positive feedback here. The hotter it gets, the faster the Zr reacts with steam, releasing H2 & heat, making it hotter...At some point the fuel starts falling apart because ZrO has no structural strength. Lots of fission products come out of the exposed pellets.

So we get to the point of asking whether the core is melted. I don't know. I know the fuel is damaged because of all the hydrogen & cesium.
posted by Dr. Zira at 12:17 AM on March 13, 2011 [46 favorites]

Unless you're an independent nuclear engineer on site I'd be very skeptical about what is and is not going to happen. Japan isn't being forthcoming. I think they are embarrassed, this is an anticipated disaster similar to Katrina.
posted by polyhedron at 12:19 AM on March 13, 2011

So, in the US, reactors as commercial power generators are expensive to build, expensive to run, and compete with cheap coal, so investors aren't naturally drawn to it.

I can understand why nuclear engineers, or just engineers for that matter, might find a complex system requiring designs with extreme forethought to produce masses of power out of apparently nothing. Believe me, I'm built that way too.

But this pet dragon doesn't live without government subsidy, without government regulation, without some force that would displace cheap coal, and replace it with more expensive electricity.

I don't think I'm clear on all the parts involved.
posted by dglynn at 12:19 AM on March 13, 2011

salvia: The Washington Post Diagram may help. As I understand it, the reactor vessel is a strong metal container, and the big concrete and steel primary containment is around that. The "secondary containment" is the building around all that. Tab #3 shows the secondary containment is what was damaged in the explosion, but to the best of my knowledge, the reactor vessel and the primary containment are still intact in both reactors.

There is, of course, question as to whether these have been weakened by the earthquake and subsequent events, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that they have been damaged yet.
posted by zachlipton at 12:19 AM on March 13, 2011 [5 favorites]

Blazecok Pileon Safety costs money, which is why safety is off the table.

Bullshit. Look, I'm as worried about the state of these reactors as anyone. This is only the third time in history that a power producing reactor has suffered a (partial) meltdown. It will have a huge effect on the industry. But safety is in every nuclear operator's best interest, because they all know one accident and they completely lose their (ginormously large) investment, and the ability to ever try again. The number of employees whose sole job is "reactor safety" makes up a sizeable fraction of any plant's payroll. The numbers back it up. You are less likely to be injured or killed at or around a nuclear plant than any other industrial facility - even during an earthquake!
posted by Popular Ethics at 12:20 AM on March 13, 2011 [6 favorites]

For cryin' out loud, I didn't come here for the loquacious vs. furiousxgeorge show.

I was kind of hoping for more eriko, but in light of the "DEFINITELY DOOM" and "DEFINITELY NOT DOOM" I guess I'll just be heading back to twitter and the much more nuanced discussion with the likes of @arclight and @touruma.
posted by chimaera at 12:23 AM on March 13, 2011 [8 favorites]

Let's go with the odds are slim, much like the odds of the local dam breaking.

You should say what you mean then, and choose your words much more carefully because when it comes to science and engineering absolute values and words like "never" are nearly impossible.

Also, you know what else was slim odds? A 9.0 megaquake hitting a densely populated area that relies primarily on nuclear powered electricity.
posted by loquacious at 12:27 AM on March 13, 2011 [6 favorites]

furiousxgeorge writes "Any more hydrogen produced in this manner, with no building, is being vented directly into the atmosphere."

Hydrogen in concentrations below stoicometric ratio is pretty harmless.

Dasein writes "Sure, it's fine for errands close to home, but who pays $30,000 for a car with such limited use? My car needs to be able to go to the grocery store, but it also needs to be able to visit friends out of town if I feel like it, or spend a whole day running errands in different parts of the city, without having to worry that I'm going to be stranded if something comes up. Are you really going to buy a car only to be forced to rent every time you want to go out of town? What's the point? The answer to that question is yes only for a very, very few people who put their personal ideology ahead of practicality. Mass adoption of technology can't rely on personal sacrifice like that."

I haven't travelled more than a 100 miles in my car in 24 hours in at least a year, probably two. Lots of people have my usage. Heck many people manage with out owning a car at all. Shocking I know.
posted by Mitheral at 12:28 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

I was kind of hoping for more eriko, but in light of the "DEFINITELY DOOM" and "DEFINITELY NOT DOOM"

Sorry, I'll try to refrain from engaging furiousxgeorge further. I'm trying to respond to and answer questions, even if they're rhetorical.

I'm not in the "DEFINITELY DOOM" camp, by the way. I'm in the "POSSIBLY DOOM BUT HOPEFULLY OK" camp.
posted by loquacious at 12:29 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

You should say what you mean then, and choose your words much more carefully because when it comes to science and engineering absolute values and words like "never" are nearly impossible.

Also, you know what else was slim odds? A 9.0 megaquake hitting a densely populated area that relies primarily on nuclear powered electricity.

loquacious, none of that is going to happen when they are dumping seawater on it.

Perhaps you might explain how you feel it might happen. I mean, it might heat up and melt through the ground when they are dumping water on it, but I don't understand how you feel that might happen so I went with slim to avoid going further. If you want to explain it go ahead.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:34 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

I haven't travelled more than a 100 miles in my car in 24 hours in at least a year, probably two.

When I lived in LA, I worked with people who commuted more than 100 miles each way to work. Hell, in LA, people don't mind driving 50 miles to go to a restaurant for dinner. I did that plenty of times.
posted by charlie don't surf at 12:34 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

re: electric cars. I though the Better Place idea was pretty good - people could switch their spent battery for a fresh one at petrol stations. Not sure the entrepreneur behind it is all that reliable, but the concept seems to address the concern about people not being used to having to stop to charge all the time. In Europe I believe there are little charging poles in carparks, which is another idea that could be expanded.
posted by harriet vane at 12:36 AM on March 13, 2011

My god, I thought web forums were awful. How do I use twitter without losing my mind?

Even in the worst case scenario it can't get so bad that nuclear power would be forever discredited. This is bad, it could get very bad, but it's not exactly a prime model for nuclear disasters in the 21st century. This event, as unfortunate as it is, will lead to further improvements in disaster readiness and safety protocols.

furiousxgeorge, I appreciate your sentiment but the situation over there isn't good. Almost anything could happen. Reactor 3 was supposed to be under control yesterday. Let's let it play out.
posted by polyhedron at 12:37 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Reactor 3 will be getting the same treatment as 1, the seawater that apparently has a slim chance of not cooling stuff.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:38 AM on March 13, 2011

Yes, they are doing everything in their power. 9.0 magnitude earthquakes have unpredictable effects on infrastructure. Major disaster is extremely unlikely. Still doesn't mean Japan wasn't saying Reactor 3 was peachy keen.
posted by polyhedron at 12:40 AM on March 13, 2011

Furiousxgeorge, just out of curiosity, what are your qualifications here - engineer, physics nut, what? You sound awfully dismissive and sure of yourself, but I haven't seen you offer much evidence of your claims. Do you have a citation for the fact that they'll be able to keep up the seawater level in either reactor, for example? I think that this has been an ongoing problem and that the extent of the water leakage is unknown - so your absolute certainty about the situation is perplexing.

It seems to me that if seawater was a cure-all like you're saying, they would have tried it way before the cores started getting damaged in the first place.
posted by dialetheia at 12:42 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Nothing about the reporting suggests Japan would tell the world if something was seriously wrong at the facility before they absolutely had to.
posted by polyhedron at 12:43 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Two years ago I read a "techno-thriller" written by a retired nuclear engineer called "Rad Decision" about the damage suffered by a BWR type reactor following a terrorist attack. I shouldn't be too surprised, since the risks are well known, but the last few days have almost eerily matched the plot:

- Two independent power grids are knocked out
- The diesel generators are disabled
- The steam powered core cooling pump is sabotaged
- As a result, the reactor is shut down easily, but operators are unable to remove residual heat
- As the water level in the core drops, employees race to try to restore core cooling
- First the operators vent the reactor into the suppression pool (torus), which buys them a few hours
- Eventually they have to vent the pressure out of containment, sending a notable, but not deadly amount of radiation into the atmosphere.

I'm spoiling it, but in the book, there's no hydrogen explosion, and operators are finally able to fix the steam powered cooling pump (a suicide mission). However the result is about the same as today - small radioactive release, partially melt down reactor, and lots of suspense during.
posted by Popular Ethics at 12:43 AM on March 13, 2011 [6 favorites]

dialetheia, borated seawater destroys the reactor rendering it unsalvageable. That's why they'd hold off on using it.
posted by polyhedron at 12:44 AM on March 13, 2011

Why don't they punch a hole in the roof of building 3 and let that hydrogen out?
posted by bink at 12:44 AM on March 13, 2011

I haven't travelled more than a 100 miles in my car in 24 hours in at least a year, probably two. Lots of people have my usage. Heck many people manage with out owning a car at all. Shocking I know.

And lots of people don't like the idea of paying more for a car that can do substantially less than cheaper cars that have been on the market for years and have easily available maintenance options. Certainly a lot of people have your usage and many manage just fine without owning a car, but generally those who are in the market for $30K+ new cars want to have the ability to take their car up to Tahoe (or other geographically appropriate destination) for the weekend or go visit grandma or take a trip to visit a client or attend a training session for work or any number of other situations. Basically, they want to be able to use their car to the fullest. Most people don't want to be forced to have their car towed (or drive 100 miles or less at a time) if they decide to move. They want to be able to drive their car the hell out of town if there is an emergency. Even if an electric car with limited range works perfectly fine for your normal driving pattern, a lot of people making a substantial investment in a vehicle want something that is suitable for virtually all their needs, not just the majority of them.

That's not to say that the current model is sustainable (it isn't) or that electric cars are fatally flawed (they aren't). My point is just that there are good reasons why they aren't attractive to people today, and it's not because they enjoy trampling the environment.
posted by zachlipton at 12:44 AM on March 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

loquacious, none of that is going to happen when they are dumping seawater on it.

They're dumping boron-laced seawater on it because a partial meltdown has probably already happened. And now #3 is likely melting. We already know from the cesium that fuel rod cladding has oxidized - this means lots and lots of heat.

There are a number of things that can happen that would prevent the workers from continuing to cool the cores. More quakes. Power loss. A vessel breach and leak making it to hot to approach. The pumps could fail.

So you're using the words "none" again when the "none" you're talking about has already happened. Stop, man. Walk away from the thread. I'm doing the same.
posted by loquacious at 12:44 AM on March 13, 2011

none of that is going to happen when they are dumping seawater on it.

You are offering scenarios in which they aren't dumping sea water on it anymore?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:46 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Hydrogen explosion anticipated at reactor 3
posted by polyhedron at 12:46 AM on March 13, 2011

Why don't they punch a hole in the roof of building 3 and let that hydrogen out?

Because it might explode in their faces.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:47 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Because it might explode in their faces.

Isn't there a pretty good chance the outer building is going to do that anyway?
I wonder if there is some kind of vent they can activate or something, to try to keep it from blowing up like building 1 did.
posted by bink at 12:49 AM on March 13, 2011

dialetheia: the extent of the water leakage is unknown

Where have you heard that the primary containment was leaking? Tepco's press releases have said that the containment vessel was intact.

bink: Why don't they punch a hole in the roof of building 3 and let that hydrogen out?

The explosion kind of did that for them in building 1. These buildings are connected to ventilation stacks through charcoal filters, so you'd like to keep the envelope intact to limit how much radioactivity could make it to the atmosphere. Usually the buildings are equipped with hydrogen recombiners to prevent this scenario (my company tested a few back in the day), but they probably don't function without power.
posted by Popular Ethics at 12:50 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think it's safe to guess no, or they have a reason not to be opening it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:50 AM on March 13, 2011

furiousxgeorge, with respect, you are adding nothing to this thread. Your apparent need to be an insta-expert on everything and your repetitive and aggressive posting style is getting in the way of learning from people who have well informed opinions. I'm asking you to knock it off or dial it back.
posted by Rumple at 12:56 AM on March 13, 2011 [12 favorites]

Who commutes more than 100 miles each direction? Whose errands are more than 100 miles?

Uh, plenty of people in Southern California where our public transportation is for shit? I can name any number of colleagues and family members who put in 100-200 miles a day on a regular basis.
posted by scody at 12:57 AM on March 13, 2011

Where have you heard that the primary containment was leaking? Tepco's press releases have said that the containment vessel was intact.

You are right, I misunderstood - the issue is more that the coolant kept boiling off too faster than they could replenish it, is that right? Either way, my understanding is that up until now, they hadn't been able to keep enough water circulating to effectively cool the core, and at some point the fuel rods were exposed above the water level. If further difficulties arise with the pumping process (such as an unlucky aftershock or power failure), it seems possible that the fuel rods could end up above water again.

Does anybody know more about how they're pumping the seawater?
posted by dialetheia at 1:02 AM on March 13, 2011

Thanks, zachlipton.

Dasein, I agree with you that those limitations will be serious to some people, although if I understand mitheral, when you run out of electricity in the Volt, you can just fill up with gas. There are also plenty of people for whom that amount of driving is not necessary. (Even in LA, charlie don't surf, or so I've been lectured from my LA friends whenever I've tried to stereotype Southern California driving patterns.)

Here's some FHWA data showing that trips of more than 100 miles make up less than 1 percent of all trips. If you download the xls data (use table 4_6 -- not the link included to 4_5), you'll see that trips of 75 miles and up are still only 1.13% of all trips. This doesn't tell us much about trip linking (e.g., the day of errands you describe), because those would each be separate trips, I believe. But table 4-4 says that annual miles driven per licensed driver was 14,769 miles. If you divide by, oh, 340 days of non-sick, non-out-of-town driving, it comes to an average of 43 miles/day. I know my driving isn't averaged out like that: it's three road trips and then 48 weeks of driving much less. And if I'm reading this table right, the average distance of a trip to work by car or light truck was about 14 miles.
posted by salvia at 1:02 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

Bullshit. Look, I'm as worried about the state of these reactors as anyone. This is only the third time in history that a power producing reactor has suffered a (partial) meltdown

Historically, it seems dubious to claim that a meltdown is the sole way a nuclear power plant has been unsafely operated. In fact, over the six decades nuclear plants have operated, accidents in handling reactor material and coolant have resulted in contamination and death of workers and the release of unsafe levels of radiation into the environment.

Indeed, as the link I provided shows, there is evidence that regulatory agencies are mostly toothless in regulating of commercial nuclear power operators, who seem to run their plants until an accident happens or until a local government has to step in actively shut them down.

It seems that nuclear facilities cannot be run safely and make a profit at the same time. In a legal climate that promotes profits over safety, i.e. monetized by insurance companies as "acceptable risk", a commercial operator has less incentive to place safety over profits, with predictable results.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:10 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

NHK reported partial meltdown likely at reactor 3.

Crap. Last night I mentioned to Loquacious that I was going to take a trip to the Gulf coast after the third meltdown, regardless of what the authorities said about the radiation hazard. And now look, we're two-thirds of the way there.

Does anybody know more about how they're pumping the seawater?

I imagine the pumps and plumbing are part of the original reactor design. They probably use sea water for the outer cooling loop in normal operation. If you look at pictures of the plant, it doesn't have the usual big cooling towers. So they already have pipes to the sea, filters, etc. So pumping sea water directly into the core can probably be done just by opening the right valves.
posted by ryanrs at 1:11 AM on March 13, 2011

I have put together a rough but detailed timeline of events at Fukushima-1 Unit-1 based on TEPCO's English Language press releases. I would appreciate it if several MeFites with an interest in the source material could take a look and see if this timeline can be improved.

Please do not republish. This is a draft that certainly contains errors. I'd like to get it right with the help of other Mefites.

Draft timeline of events at Fukushima-1 Unit-1

If you want to contribute, let me know and I'll figure out how to give you write access.

Note on dates. Where there's only a beginning date/time, it's stated explicitly. Where there's a begin and an end date, it's often because the source material does not explicitly state when the event occurred, and so it has been inferred from other known events in TEPCO documents as well as the approximate time of an undated announcement (for example, an undated annoucement being made between one at 3am and another at 5am).
posted by zippy at 1:12 AM on March 13, 2011 [10 favorites]

I'd kind of be surprised if you could flip some valves and pump seawater into the reactor. Those loops should probably be completely independent, all things considered.
posted by polyhedron at 1:14 AM on March 13, 2011

polyhedron, valves reserved for special occasions.

I actually have no idea how the plumbing is set up, I just noticed the lack of cooling towers.
posted by ryanrs at 1:17 AM on March 13, 2011

Furiousxgeorge, just out of curiosity, what are your qualifications here - engineer, physics nut, what? ... It seems to me that if seawater was a cure-all like you're saying, they would have tried it way before the cores started getting damaged in the first place.

Sorry, I missed the part where you offered up your qualifications to make that last claim.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 1:37 AM on March 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

They probably use sea water for the outer cooling loop in normal operation.

This would really surprise me - seems like a nuclear plant would want to use more tightly controlled materials, and the salty water would cause too much rust damage.
posted by dialetheia at 1:37 AM on March 13, 2011

I don't see the value in people who are not nuclear engineers or otherwise qualified to make these kinds of calls tossing around conjecture with such conviction in this thread. If anything it's just adding noise to a situation that's still unfolding. We're getting lots of that from various news outlets as it is.

The spokesman for the Japanese PM was very dismissive of the reactor issues on CNN a few minutes ago, saying that there is no evidence of core damage (which seems to contradict the roof blowing off no. 1 and earlier announcements) and that nothing has transpired that could reasonably be called a meltdown.

On the other end of the spectrum practically all major media outlets have been sensationalizing every part of this story so far. What ever happened to credibility?

I'd imagine the only people who really know what's going on are those at the site, and even they may not know the full extent of what's happened inside the reactors. It's somewhat surprising to be seeing reports ranging from "nothing's wrong" to "prepare for fallout" from supposedly trustworthy sources all at the same time.
posted by howlingmonkey at 1:45 AM on March 13, 2011 [6 favorites]

Part of the confusion probably arises from the fact that meltdown isn't exactly an industry term. The fuel has been damaged and that is unequivocably bad. It sounds like it was damaged by residual heat and not by a critical reaction, which I think is what most people would consider melting down. However the fuel melted and released fission products from the reactor. Containment structures seem to be intact and functioning but honestly who the hell knows?

The term "partial meltdown" evokes Three Mile Island, but to my recollection 45% of the core was melted at TMI and it is unlikely that the damage at Daiichi is that significant. It is still quite possible that partial meltdown has occurred. They can guess at the extent of damage by the fission products emitted, but as far as I am aware the only way to be certain is to examine it directly.
posted by polyhedron at 1:55 AM on March 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

Which is really all I know about nuclear power. I was hoping this thread would be more informative, since the news is rubbish, but it seems to be more bickering than anything. What will happen will happen, it's not a competition to be "right" about predicting it. You all have a 50% chance of being right, OK? Can we keep the hyperbole down?
posted by fshgrl at 1:56 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

Less talking heads, more analysis plz.
posted by zippy at 1:56 AM on March 13, 2011

Sorry, I missed the part where you offered up your qualifications to make that last claim.

Challenging an apparent flaw in someone else's logic doesn't require any qualifications, because no assertions of fact are being made.
posted by anigbrowl at 1:57 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Uh, plenty of people in Southern California where our public transportation is for shit? I can name any number of colleagues and family members who put in 100-200 miles a day on a regular basis.

Again with the SoCal bashing... sigh. Well, luckily, your colleagues and family members must be above average, scody. :) This sample of 20,000 drivers in Southern California (table 34) finds that average time to work for drivers is under 30 minutes. Anyway, maybe we should take this derail into memail or wait until the next electric vehicle thread?
posted by salvia at 3:01 AM on March 13, 2011

It sounds like TEPCO is trying to remove the hydrogen buildup. I am going by machine translation.
posted by polyhedron at 3:05 AM on March 13, 2011

it's not a competition to be "right"

But this is the internet!
posted by ryanrs at 3:23 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Most power plants use once through cooling from a nearby water source to dump heat. I know the coastal plants in CA use ~1 billion gallons a day of seawater each*. Obviously they don't normally run saltwater through the reactor/ main power systems- it's a heat transfer.

I've surfed in the edges outflow from San Onofre back in the 80s and 90s the heat was intense and kind of freaky. It was like surfing in a bath tub. Hey, it's a good break and you can camp nearby to the north. And it's really surreal surfing right under the huge containment domes. You could feel the difference between the cold water and the much warmer water very clearly, it was just a few paddle strokes between being in normally chilly 50 F Pacific sea water and suddenly being in a 90+ F jacuzzi. I never went too far into the flow, and never really saw people more than a 100 feet or so into the flow, but it wasn't really about radiation. It was just too warm,to be comfortable for too long with a wetsuit on, but it was nice to dip into to warm up. And if I recall most of the break was to the north anyway.

I remember the kelp and plankton being oddly abundant, like it was overgrowing. The water had a strange greenish tinge to it like an overfertilized lake or something, or maybe had too much air stirred into it from tiny bubbles from cavitation in pumps. It had a lot of reduced visibility.

Hey, how about a map? You can actually see the outflow and break in that.
posted by loquacious at 3:26 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

Sorry, I missed the part where you offered up your qualifications to make that last claim.

Not to keep this going, but since you asked: furiousxgeorge has generally presented his opinions with a great deal of confidence in this thread, so I assumed he must have some expertise in the subject, as do so many of the other people posting here with such confidence. I honestly just wanted to know what the basis of his certainty was. I, on the other hand, am not an expert, so I didn't make any claims that weren't preceded by some version of "seems to me."

Anyway, thanks for the info on the seawater cooling mechanism, everyone! I hope that the seawater somehow makes the difference - I don't quite understand why they expect the pumps to be able to keep up with the heat now when they couldn't before, but I sure hope it works.
posted by dialetheia at 3:27 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

for what it's worth, my qualifications are: 1) I'm an engineer, 2) I read a lot, 3) I'm very good at educated guesses, and 4) I have attention-excess disorder
posted by zippy at 3:33 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Between voluble non-experts taking sides, this is a nearly worthless thread. Nothing but conjecture and wild scenarios which seem very loosely based in actual fact, if at all. Disaster porn. Ugh.

I am looking forward to the entire Appalachian range being table-topped and burned so the east coast can plug in their cars, though.
posted by maxwelton at 3:38 AM on March 13, 2011

As for me, I'm just pessimistic.
posted by ryanrs at 3:41 AM on March 13, 2011

A lot of the problem here is assumptions that I'm claiming more than I am, such as the minor freak out when I pointed out there is no chance of a nuclear explosion.

In this case, my claim of "none of that is going to happen when they are dumping seawater on it" was conflated with "there is no possible way the flow of sea water could be interrupted."

I am not claiming things that are controversial or outside what is being reported by reliable media sources, a Chernobyl type disaster is not possible.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:43 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

it's not a competition to be "right"

That's going on and I apologize for my part in it, and will try to tone it down.

But there's a lot of stuff going on. Disaster psychology. Memories of Chernobyl and the lack of honesty, and past lack of honesty or transparency from the atomic industry at large both civilian and military.

Then there's the lack of initial information about a complicated scenario that has the potential to range beyond it's local area. People are earnestly trying to fill in the gaps about something that not only has a serious PR problem but is extremely complicated. And I think people are pretty burned out in general, above and beyond the last thread.

But another problem is that while this is the third such accident in many people's life times, this is the first time it's happened live in the internet age, and worse in the midst of a much larger catastrophe which may be straining response capability.

And as far as I know this is the first such incident that has involved so many individual reactors at the same time, at multiple plant locations.

Not being flippant, but this is like seriously bad zombie apocalypse sci fi disaster movie shit going on. A bit of panic and disinformation is going to happen as people try to fill in the blanks and engage those powerful self-preservation instincts.
posted by loquacious at 3:45 AM on March 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

While looking for details on Fukushima-1 Reactor-1's fuel assembly construction (7x7R - I know, right?), I found this detailed paper on the spent fuel assemblies from

Compilation of Measurement and Analysis Results of Isotopic Inventories of Spent BWR Fuels (pdf), Toru YAMAMOTO, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization, February 2009

Reactors in this paper are described in more detail than I've seen elsewhere. Coverage focuses in reactors at Fukushima-Daini [Fukushima-2], including the size and arrangement of fuel rods, the fueling frequency, and the expected breakdown composition in spent fuel rods from each reactor.
posted by zippy at 3:53 AM on March 13, 2011 [6 favorites]

Unicorn chaser.
posted by loquacious at 3:56 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

More sources: NEA's Spent Fuel Isotopic Composition Database including entries for Fukushima-Daiichi-3 and Fukushima-Daini-2

The pages go into great detail on the fuel assemblies, including composition when fresh and spent.
posted by zippy at 3:59 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Even in the worst case scenario it can't get so bad that nuclear power would be forever discredited.

Yeah, some are saying this will discourage further nuclear power development around the world, if not leave it totally discredited. That's possible, but on the other hand if it does end such that "no one will receive a high enough dose of radiation to cause any negative health effects", it might do the opposite when people realize that even one of the worst earthquakes in recorded history didn't do more than cause a nuclear disaster that, while pretty bad, isn't anything more than an extremely small fraction of damage to everything else from the tsunami.
posted by sfenders at 4:06 AM on March 13, 2011 [7 favorites]

more nerdery on this track - in the previous link you can click down into the arrangement of individual fuel assemblies - each one in the reactor - like Fukushima-1 Unit-3 assembly F3A3 and see the 8 x 8 matrix of the different types of rods. Click on a red "measured sample" rod, like A-1 and you can see its attributes as well as the measurements of individual samples.
posted by zippy at 4:08 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

Challenging an apparent flaw in someone else's logic doesn't require any qualifications, because no assertions of fact are being made.

Implying that somebody else wasn't qualified to comment on technical matters, then immediately moving to make such comments sans those very same qualifications has SFA to do with pointing out logical flaws.

I, on the other hand, am not an expert

So furious should put up or shut up, but you can say whatever you like so long as you preface it with some kind of weasel words like 'it seems'? Gotcha.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:09 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

My opinion is that everybody should have a stiff drink and let's get back to what MetaFilter does best, viz. finding links to obscure shit on the Internet like zippy is.

I was looking earlier for information about the confirmed death at Fukushima Daini. The IAEA indicates that this was not due to radiological exposure.

Japanese authorities have reported some casualties to nuclear plant workers. At Fukushima Daichi, four workers were injured by the explosion at the Unit 1 reactor, and there are three other reported injuries in other incidents. In addition, one worker was exposed to higher-than-normal radiation levels that fall below the IAEA guidance for emergency situations. At Fukushima Daini, one worker has died in a crane operation accident and four others have been injured.

posted by ob1quixote at 4:12 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

For what it's worth, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute Marvin Fertel will be on Meet the Press this morning. He's a well respected nuclear reactor expert, a former chief nuclear officer, and extremely knowledgeable and personable. Expect a very informative, if slightly biased, interview.
posted by General Malaise at 4:23 AM on March 13, 2011

Is electricity much cheaper in France or Japan than in countries that rely on coal?

Ah. I can feel useful. Nearly 80% of France's electricity is provided by the country's soon-to-be 60 nuclear reactors, which is the largest percentage of nuclear-provided power in the world for a given country. Got those figures from this Wikipedia article. I only follow nuclear power issues casually, though I did work on several translations surrounding bids etc. for the European Pressurized Reactor planned to be built near Marseille. That wiki article quotes: "The Union of Concerned Scientists has referred to the EPR as the only new reactor design under consideration in the United States that '...appears to have the potential to be significantly safer and more secure against attack than today's reactors.' "

As for electricity rates, yeah, it's even cheaper here than in my home state of Oregon. (Lots of dams in Oregon.) This page, if you click on the "Option Base" pull-down, has the base electricity rates as set by the French government: about 11 or 12 euro-cents per kWh, depending on your subscription. EDF is no longer publically owned; competition was opened a few years ago. So we can choose non-governmental rates too, but frankly, I've never seen any that work out any better than the set rate. My 45sqm (about 480sq.ft) apartment has a 6kVA/30A subscription with "option heures pleines/heures creuses", in brief, I pay cheaper rates between 10:30pm and 6am. Practical for setting things like 2kW water heaters to run, and timing your laundry loads for the low hours. Low hours are 8.64 euro-cents per kWh, while day-time rates are 12.75 euro-cents/kWh, a tad higher than the base rate. For me it works out to 35 euros/month, yearly subscription included. My appliances and light bulbs all have A or better energy efficiency rating, though; my laundry machine is even A+ and my freezer-fridge kicks ass with an A++ rating. I hardly ever hear it run.

Now back to the informative commentary on what's going on in Japan. I'm really appreciating these MeFi threads.
posted by fraula at 4:28 AM on March 13, 2011 [12 favorites]

I've been telling you, my dear.....
posted by McGuillicuddy at 4:30 AM on March 13, 2011

Convention on Nuclear Safety National Report of Japan for the Third Review Meeting (pdf) Government of Japan, Aug 2004, describes in some detail

TEPCO's falsification of leak data and the regulator's response (tl;dr, put TEPCO in world of reporting hurt, though regulators did find facilities were within limits)

Anyhow, Table 15-2, Dose Limits for the Public, I think will help in reconciling radiation release figures with statements like "8x normal" with regards to monitoring.

Effective dose: 1 mSv/ year
Equivalent dose for eye lens: 15 mSv/year
Equivalent dose for skin: 50 mSv/ year

I believe the above are for measurements taken off-site.

Then there's Table 15-1, Dose limits for personnel engaged in radiation work. Excerpts:

Personnel engaged in radiation works: 100 mSv / 5 year, but do not exceed 50 mSv for any year
Personnel engaged in emergency radiation works:
- effective dose 100 mSv/ incident
- equivalent dose for eye lens 300mSv/ incident
- equivalent dose for skin 1Sv/ incident

Table 16 – 1 Main Specific Events and the Nuclear Emergency specified in the Special Law for Nuclear Emergency is the most fascinating to me. It spells out when TEPCO has to make notifications (those Article 10 / 15 ones) and precisely what conditions trigger them. For example:

event: Loss of all AC power supplies
criteria for reporting: When all AC power supplies stops power supply for more than 5 minutes
conditions for declaration of National Emergency: When all measures for cooling reactor power supplies

This table lets me dig a bit further into TEPCO's mandatory announcements where they say "we had to notify people under Article Blah Section Foo." Often, they'll say there was an event like loss of power, but only give the time at which they notified authorities, rather than the time of the event itself. This table puts bounds on when the event must have occurred.
posted by zippy at 4:39 AM on March 13, 2011 [5 favorites]

As for electricity rates, yeah, it's even cheaper here than in my home state of Oregon.

Upon looking for stats, I take that back. Electricity's cheaper in Oregon than in France. Figures here. I'd been comparing my electricity bills to those of friends in similar-sized places and with similar usage; I do pay less than them, but apparently they're using more than I realize.
posted by fraula at 4:42 AM on March 13, 2011

zippy, are those 'm' for milliSieverts as per standard SI notation do you think? I keep hearing the TEPCO people talking about doses in microSieverts.
posted by ob1quixote at 4:48 AM on March 13, 2011

For what it's worth, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute Marvin Fertel will be on Meet the Press this morning.

Yes, be sure to tune in especially if you believe propaganda is synonymous with news. The only time a Meet the Press interview approaches news is in the days after when the lies told on the program are exposed. Having a trade group representative on MTP as an objective source is just par for the course for them.
posted by any major dude at 4:50 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Table 16-1 spells out "micro" for µ and appears to use m for milli, but a) it's a translation, and b) I'm not entirely sure if they're using m for milli.
posted by zippy at 4:51 AM on March 13, 2011

The Union of Concerned Scientists area pro-environment bunch with a good reputation.

Then there's the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, based in the Netherlands and very skeptical of nuclear power.
posted by tommyD at 4:52 AM on March 13, 2011

Following up, the document uses m the same way OSHA does for radiation exposure.

Japan: limit on public dose: 1 mSv/ year
OSHA: ... limit of radiation exposure to a member of the general public as 100 mrem/y (1 mSv/y)
posted by zippy at 4:55 AM on March 13, 2011

Please clarify for me which nuclear-related organizations that actually work with nuclear energy aren't "propaganda."

The fact of the matter is that the NEI is in a much better position to understand these events than you or Greenpeace. Their website seems a lot less axe-grindey too.
posted by polyhedron at 4:59 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

I have no horse in the NEI race here, however it appears to be a trade group and its leadership roster (pdf) consists almost entirely of heads of what appear to be power companies.
posted by zippy at 5:04 AM on March 13, 2011

Also, you can buy NEI's simulated uranium pellet (pretty cool!)
posted by zippy at 5:07 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

A brief backgrounder on the history of the nuclear industry. Adam Curtis's A Is For Atom from his 1992 Pandora's Box series.
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5. (YT)
posted by imperium at 5:09 AM on March 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

I'm not saying they don't have a vested interest. In fact, they have a very significant interest in knowing what they're talking about.

I'm going to listen with the same skeptical ear I always do but to discount the NEI offhand before any statement is made is irresponsible.
posted by polyhedron at 5:09 AM on March 13, 2011

Just to help everyone keep focused on the real issues involved here.

http://i.imgur.com/xmbUr.png
posted by Duug at 5:18 AM on March 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

And I am much more willing to trust the NEI regarding this issue after being directed there via this guy.
posted by polyhedron at 5:18 AM on March 13, 2011

Why I am not worried about Japan's Nuclear Reactors.

This post is by Dr Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT, in Boston.

He is a PhD Scientist, whose father has extensive experience in Germany’s nuclear industry. I asked him to write this information to my family in Australia, who were being made sick with worry by the media reports coming from Japan.

posted by purephase at 5:21 AM on March 13, 2011 [21 favorites]

Having a trade group representative on MTP as an objective source is just par for the course for them.

Isn't that the problem though? There aren't very many objective commentators on nuclear power, you can generally choose between pro-nuke industry groups and anti-nuke activists. In both cases they're probably sure that they're telling the truth, in both cases they have a position one way or the other.

I guess the Union of Concerned Scientists is probably as close as you can get.
posted by atrazine at 5:24 AM on March 13, 2011

polyhedron, one more thing before I put this to rest, why in the world would you trust to get anything more than the best possible scenario from the head of an organization who's chief responsibility is to promote the safety of nuclear energy? My post was not an indictment of him as it's an indictment of MTP, a program which has historically proven itself to be a corporate propaganda machine at all costs. It is not a public trust.
posted by any major dude at 5:28 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't watch TV. I am tired and misunderstood your point (about MTP). I would listen to him for an understanding of what is going on because his organization has an extremely significant interest in knowing exactly that.
posted by polyhedron at 5:34 AM on March 13, 2011

Why I am not worried about Japan's Nuclear Reactors.

Oehmen is, indeed, worried, because he is a proponent of nuclear power, and an obvious catastrophe like this is problematic for nuclear engineers who claim, despite all evidence to the contrary, that nuclear power generation is impervious to natural disasters.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:03 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

It isn't a catastrophe yet.
posted by Catfry at 6:06 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

The video on UCS's front page starts with maddow suggesting nuclear energy is just a controlled nuclear bomb. The NIRS page showcases the picture of the hydrogen explosion at reactor 1. Both seem to feature fear. Compare to NIE's page on this incident. Much more sober and factual. I am habitually skeptical but really this is not the time to pollute the discourse with anti-nuclear rhetoric. They're talking about a disaster in progress, not lobbying for new construction, and I think it's unfair to assume they are incapable of a factual analysis. Among all the misinformation and bad reporting, it is nice to have a page to load whose descriptions of the event are factual and not a journalist's poor 6-th-grade-level reconceptualization of concepts they don't understand.
posted by polyhedron at 6:06 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Scientists have measured 1000 microSieverts per hour in the town of Futaba-machi, a couple of kilometers away from Daiichi. This is still pretty low in terms of health effects -- 1000 microSv is what you could get from two round trip flights from Tokyo to New York -- but worrying in that previously those levels had only been measured at the main gate of the plant.

There is apparently a problem with a valve at unit 3 and they're having trouble decreasing pressure. It's at 425 kPa, which is slightly over the design limit of 400. The explosion at Unit 1 did not occur until they reached 800 kPa.
posted by Jeanne at 6:13 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

I can't stop thinking of the human element here. Does anyone know how many people would be on site through this? Would it just be the staff on duty two days ago or do we think/know they were able to bring in reinforcements? Can any of the emergency response be managed remotely?
posted by double bubble at 6:29 AM on March 13, 2011

"an obvious catastrophe like this is problematic for nuclear engineers who claim, despite all evidence to the contrary, that nuclear power generation is impervious to natural disasters."

Which engineers are you referring to? References?!
posted by markkraft at 6:30 AM on March 13, 2011

All I believe. The reason is no insurance company will take on the risk given the potential liability of a nuclear meltdown.

Also there was the Shoreham debacle on Long Island, NY. They built all this mega infrastructure in preparation, then there was a lawsuit challenging the evacuation plan, (the LIE is at a standstill during normal rush hours,) so the plan was derailed at a cost in the range of billions.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:33 AM on March 13, 2011

I think Maddow's explanation was on target in that she said that both a bomb and a reactor were fission reactions, but the reactor was a controlled fission reaction. I guess we only hear what we expect to hear.
posted by tommyD at 6:34 AM on March 13, 2011

...government spokesman Yukio Edano said that although seawater was being injected into reactor 3 at the Fukushima plant to cool it, gauges were not showing the water levels rising.

"We do not know what to make of this," he said.
posted by mediareport at 6:35 AM on March 13, 2011

Based on this thread and the previous one I understand that Chernobyl-type worries are not relevant in this case. However, what are the other more realistic risks that the Fukushima staff are attempting to avert?

on preview: I guess that includes water/coolant not staying where they put it.
posted by harriet vane at 6:37 AM on March 13, 2011

"on the other hand. . .it might do the opposite when people realize that even one of the worst earthquakes in recorded history didn't do more than cause a nuclear disaster that, while pretty bad, isn't anything more than an extremely small fraction of damage to everything else from the tsunami."

Indeed.

What would be interesting / instructive would be to hear from the more knowledgeable nuclear experts around here as to what their thoughts are on what the impact might've been, had we been dealing with the latest mainstream nuclear power plant technology, rather than something 40 years old. What potential risks would still exist... what wouldn't? And how would such a system likely do when facing the kind of impact we've seen in this case?
posted by markkraft at 6:41 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Trying to figure out if your emergency repair procedures are working using information from measuring equipment that itself may be damaged is not a situation I would want to be in. A good part of the rule book is useless right now.
posted by tommasz at 6:43 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Would it just be the staff on duty two days ago or do we think/know they were able to bring in reinforcements? Can any of the emergency response be managed remotely?

I recall reading that the Japanese gov. used SDF helicopters to assemble a medical team trained in radiation treatment and decontamination protocols not far from the site. It would be unreasonable to think that the government have also put whomever they need (who they can also find) on site to deal with this.

From reading documents I've linked previously, but cannot recall right now, I believe there are meeting facilities both on site and in town dedicated to gathering experts and local officials to coordinate responses to nuclear incidents.
posted by zippy at 6:44 AM on March 13, 2011

However, what are the other more realistic risks that the Fukushima staff are attempting to avert?

on preview: I guess that includes water/coolant not staying where they put it.
posted by harriet vane at 2:37 PM on March 13 [+] [!]

They want the pressure vessel to maintain integrity. They want this in order to contain the core and the associated radioactive materials. The battle has been to keep the temperature inside the core low enough that it doesn't melt the walls of the pressure vessel. If it were to melt, contamination of the surrounding area would suddenly become much more difficult to prevent.
posted by Catfry at 6:45 AM on March 13, 2011

sorry, "would be reasonable"
posted by zippy at 6:45 AM on March 13, 2011

Trying to figure out if your emergency repair procedures are working using information from measuring equipment that itself may be damaged is not a situation I would want to be in.

Yeah, it was pointed out in the previous thread that gauges, etc. may be damaged. It's an almost unbelievably complex and shifting problem.
posted by mediareport at 6:56 AM on March 13, 2011

Based on this thread and the previous one I understand that Chernobyl-type worries are not relevant in this case. However, what are the other more realistic risks that the Fukushima staff are attempting to avert?

From better to worse, here are possible scenarios:

1) Cooling with seawater keeps temperature down and there is no further damage to the fuel, no long lived radio-isotopes escape

2) Cooling fails, core melts completely but remains contained, pressure build up managed by controlled venting. Possibly some long-lived radio-isotopes escape.

3) Cooling fails, core melts and hydrogen build up cannot be controlled, explosion ruptures containment vessel (possibly along a weld seam embrittled by radiation and damaged by the quake). Long lived radioisotopes contaminate plant leading to total write-off of remaining undamaged reactors.

Progressively worse scenarios are the same but with greater radioisotope spread contaminating larger areas. Most radioisotopes blown into Pacific Ocean where they precipitate out and may cause local seabed contamination (I don't know if there is any shellfish industry nearby), some soluble radioisotopes cause below detectability contamination of ocean water.

The kind of long burning, super hot fire required to pump radioactive smoke high into the atmosphere that happened at Chernobyl does not seem to be a possibility here, but I'm not an expert.

I should point out that I don't think the containment vessel will fail, but who really knows? None of us have any data on whether it was damaged by the quake.

Modern designs are in theory safer, because they're designed to passively stay cool enough to prevent core damage even after all active cooling fails. How they would have performed after a 8.9/9.0 earthquake is an open question though.
posted by atrazine at 7:00 AM on March 13, 2011 [13 favorites]

an obvious catastrophe like this is problematic for nuclear engineers who claim, despite all evidence to the contrary, that nuclear power generation is impervious to natural disasters.

Was just coming here to post the same link. Might be worth reading it before you blindly criticize it. Also, who said things were impervious to natural disasters? The plant was rated for an 8.2 earthquake, made it through an 8.9 plus a tsunami or two that knocked out its backup generators. Would you be bitching about nuclear power's risks if we just got hit by a giant meteor and were all about to die anyway? There's natural disasters and then there's the Wrath of $DEITY. He may be a biased source, but it's an interesting read and sounds like another case where good engineering saved some people.

Anyone else notice these pieces all take time out to suggest Chernobyl might not have won any design awards?
posted by yerfatma at 7:06 AM on March 13, 2011 [5 favorites]

"The plant was rated for an 8.2 earthquake, made it through an 8.9"

Actually, they upped it to a 9.0.

Really... can anyone point out a single object in the entire world rated to survive a 9.0 earthquake?!
posted by markkraft at 7:13 AM on March 13, 2011

I'm pretty sure Jello® would survive it.

Hey, I just had a great idea for a nuclear containment design... a delicious nuclear containment design!
posted by TheNewWazoo at 7:16 AM on March 13, 2011 [6 favorites]

Yeah, but Jello® can melt, you know... and who wants to eat boron-flavored Jello®?
posted by markkraft at 7:18 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

The plant was rated for an 8.2 earthquake, made it through an 8.9 plus a tsunami or two that knocked out its backup generators.

A lack of catastrophic containment failure when your reactors are melting down is not the same thing as "making it through."
posted by enn at 7:21 AM on March 13, 2011

This is a great thread despite the back-and-forth that comes with such a topic.
Who says five bucks doesn't buy much? Not me, not here. It's more than value for your dollar though, isn't it? Sorry to derail a bit but this is the absolute best community in existence, I love it here, thank you all.
posted by nj_subgenius at 7:24 AM on March 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

Can you provide evidence that the containment failed? If not, you're wrong, mistaken, or speculating.

From the information we have to go on, the containment has not failed. This is the 3298374th time that's been said.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:51 AM on March 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

Couple comments removed. When you get to the point of commenting in a thread specifically to accuse people on not having lives for commenting in a thread it's time to just go for a walk or something instead. I know this whole subject is pretty complicated and charged and people have strong contrasting feelings about a lot of what's involved, but please try and just be decent to each other and leave any unnecessary scrapping and sniping by the wayside.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:52 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

2) Cooling fails, core melts completely but remains contained, pressure build up managed by controlled venting. Possibly some long-lived radio-isotopes escape.

Are we already at this stage? There's already been controlled venting at reactor 3 and controlled and uncontrolled venting at reactor 1, and they've detected Cesium-137 in the surrounding area, which has a half-life of 30 years.
posted by Jeanne at 7:52 AM on March 13, 2011

2) Cooling fails, core melts completely but remains contained, pressure build up managed by controlled venting. Possibly some long-lived radio-isotopes escape.

Are we already at this stage? There's already been controlled venting at reactor 3 and controlled and uncontrolled venting at reactor 1, and they've detected Cesium-137 in the surrounding area, which has a half-life of 30 years.

There has been some venting, but cooling has not failed (still have seawater) and the core is not completely melted.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:58 AM on March 13, 2011

This is a great thread, as is the first earthquake thread, still going strong.

I do however note the defensiveness of the pro-nuclear position right now with some concern. Of course it makes sense to tamp down senseless panic, especially among those of us many thousands of miles from immediate danger. There are other things going on, other people dying right now, terrible times.

Of course we all hope this is more anxiety than reality. We hope containment holds, the design is solid, fate is on our side, and the engineers know what they're doing here. But the worst-case scenarios are bad enough even limited to the most sober assessments, and the thing about radiation is that it doesn't go away after a few days or weeks. We live in an biosphere already saturated with human-generated radiation compared to a century ago, much of it due to military nuclear testing (and bombing, let's remember Japanese may have more reason to be anxious about radiation than the average human), but a freedom to experiment with the basics of our ecology that has been too easily preserved under the "national security" banner in its transformation from military to industrial use. We have tons of radioactive waste that will last tens of thousands of years that we haven't decided how to protect, and don't know how to protect at that time distance. We have dead zones and sick places. And right now several nuclear reactors are not fully under the control of their engineers, in a volatile situation where other resources are diverted to other pressing emergencies, and upwind of the place where many mefites live.

The patient technical explanations of how things work and why certain concerns are improbable is helpful. But there's no percentage in being dismissive of the anxieties being stoked right now, only ensuring that in some of our minds, the "don't worry, nuclear power is safe" line sounds awfully familiar. We're messing around at the very limits of human ability to control the consequences of a mistake. I wouldn't bet on there being no mistakes.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:58 AM on March 13, 2011 [9 favorites]

There is zero chance of a nuclear explosion.

But you could have a hydrogen explosion.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:04 AM on March 13, 2011

fourcheesemac, I won't speak for anyone else but this is an enormously frustrating conversation to observe. Firstly, these are 40-year old reactors that were due for decommissioning shortly, they're not representative of modern designs in any way. Secondly they were subjected to a literally epochal event, one that's already killed thousands of people without causing any gnashing of teeth over the failures of the homebuilding industry. Thirdly, and finally, there are enormously complicated engineering concerns at play here and many of the questions in this thread are essentially (if unintentionally) "but what if unicorns?!"

We don't know what's going on, we're guessing based on incomplete information (and the Japanese nuclear industry has communication problems, no doubt about that) but so far things seem to be under control. As I understand it, as long as the rods are kept under cover (water) and the control rods remain in it's just a waiting game of letting them cool which could take days to weeks. If the cooling fails bad things will happen but, again, so far the pumping of seawater seems to be working.

Another piece I haven't seen referenced yet.
posted by Skorgu at 8:11 AM on March 13, 2011 [24 favorites]

I think the most interesting reactor on the horizon has got to be the traveling-wave reactor Bill Gates has been trumpeting as a solution to man's ills.

Bill Gates has also claimed Windows was a workable solution.

No where do I see any lessening of State VS State or State VS non-state actors where fission plants are not a nice asymmetric target, even with a prize in the memory of Alfred Nobel as "leader of the free world".

I also do not see addressed how the plants will operate VS a nice old mass ejection of the Sun.

And even *IF* there were enough magical atom splitters in service - how can you effectively electrify 800 HP farm tractors or have enough resources to electrify the far flung transport systems?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:12 AM on March 13, 2011

many Japanese don't trust authorities are telling them everything they know.

Given how trustworthy "authorities" are* - why should they (or frankly anyone else) trust 'em?

* Three Mile Island where the actual issues were not told to the public.
Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)
Fox news can lie in news reports decision.

And the whole logical fallacy - appeal to authority. If authority wasn't often times wrong - the appeal the authority wouldn't be a logical fallacy.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:19 AM on March 13, 2011

Second nuclear reactor at risk of explosion as Japan's crisis grows.
posted by ericb at 8:33 AM on March 13, 2011

GE-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S..
posted by ericb at 8:35 AM on March 13, 2011

The reason is no insurance company will take on the risk given the potential liability of a nuclear meltdown.

Its because reactors have been shown, by operational example, to be unsafe.

When Price-Anderson/the whole Eisenhower Peaceful Atom program was introduced the Government claimed they would be in the Insurance market until civilian power was shown to be safe. And every time Price-Anderson comes back up for renewal the various talking heads of the fission industry don't say "We are safe, we don't need you" instead the Congressional record show the industry as a whole asking for Price-Anderson to be extended.

Under the peaceful atom program (and other make power not bombs laws) parties have certain obligations - and just look at the rhetoric over Iran/Pakistan/India/North Korea/Israel/South Africa/Libya. Remember in the 1970's Iran was taking out advertisements about how they were ordering fission plants from Westinghouse. What happens when a State goes "rogue" and starts attacking other States - what does the world do if that "rogue" State has fission plants? How many of pro-nukes-for-power change their tune or even turn down their volume if the State that has 'em changes leadership?

Remember that Tunisia was "on track" to get a couple of fission power reactors - how many of you would be "comfortable" with those proposed 2009 plants being working plants in 2010? How about proposed plants in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia being on line and operational if the 'days of rage' become 'flights out the the nation by the King and his family' - are the pro fission people as gung ho for that?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:37 AM on March 13, 2011

Radiation risk from nuclear plant seen as worrisome, not critical -- "Experts say leak from Fukushima reactor unlikely to pose serious threat to public health."
posted by ericb at 8:39 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

GE-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.

...and now we know that all it takes to set them off is an earthquake that destroys the entire country that contains them.
posted by Artw at 8:41 AM on March 13, 2011 [11 favorites]

... and a 'capital T' Tsunami.
posted by mazola at 8:45 AM on March 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

One of many things that can set them off. Sadly, there are other things as well.
posted by Windopaene at 8:46 AM on March 13, 2011

. The problem is the irridation of people, homes, and communities... some of them a way far away from the plant itself.

Germany is "upwind" from Chernobyl and separated by another whole Country and yet:
Radioactive Boars Part of Chernobyl's Legacy

Imagine the economic impact of taking 10-20-50 miles round a coastline and saying "nope, that land and the buildings are now a no-go" And if you are in the US of A, now imagine the paperwork and process to have the US Government back that with the "insurance" of Price-Anderson.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:47 AM on March 13, 2011

Another good summary of the situation from FireDogLake: Japanese Nuclear Watch Update – One Meltdown, Another Probable, Large Evacuations Ordered.
posted by scalefree at 8:57 AM on March 13, 2011

In scalefree's link (either in the article or the comments, I forget which) it is stated that it is likely that some of the workers fighting to keep things under control have already most likely absorbed a fatal amount of radiation...could this be true?
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 9:04 AM on March 13, 2011

I wash my hands of this thread. It's going in a circle of half-truths, speculation, disaster porn, and People Who Must Make A Political Point. There's a lot of Not Helpful on all sides.

This event doesn't vindicate anyone's thesis. This was an unplanned for corner case that most nuke plants will never face -- a subduction zone earthquake 60-70 miles away followed by a 20 foot tsunami. It was a 40 year old reactor design. All things considered, #1 and #3 are not yet in cataclysmic failure, just functioning in a very bad way.

But no, this doesn't prove nor disprove nuclear power is safe. Yes, there have only been a handful of nuclear plant disasters that have put the public at risk. At the same time, companies will always cut corners, and plants are run and built by fallible humans. The risk may be lower on nuclear power, but meltdowns, steam explosions, and releases of radioactive material far above healthy limits are always possible. And, of course, there's the question of what to do with all that waste.

And yet, when running normally nuclear plants produce a lot fewer carcinogens and particulates than coal plants do. They aren't limited by location like hydro, nor as harmful to watershed ecosystems. And they're not burning through our limited supplies of natural gas and petroleum like gas and oil turbines do (and nuclear produces electricity a lot more efficiently than either one). So there are good reasons for nuclear power; they just have tradeoffs that become emotional battle flags.

The most annoying thing about this radiation plume that may not even come is that they have done multiple studies that have shown a not-insignificant part of the air pollution in the Northwest comes from coal plants in China. And yet, while we in Seattle and Portland are every moment breathing in coal soot that's putting people's lives at risk, we freak out because we might see a slight uptick in background radiation from the little bit of radioactive cesium we may see.

Nuclear power may be the best way out of our current environmental catastrophe. It may be our only way out. It's definitely not the safest way out. But it's impossible to have that conversation, not when emotions are off the charts, not when the coal industry just has to mutter "Chernobyl" while using its political power to avoid environmental regulation and quash alternative energy research money.

So I'm done with this. Go drive your Nissan Leafs to the Gulf or whatever.
posted by dw at 9:06 AM on March 13, 2011 [55 favorites]

St. Alia: a total of 11 power plant workers have been hospitalized, according to Yomiuri Shinbun. Some of those are injuries, rather than radiation exposure, but one person has been exposed to 100 milliSieverts, which is getting close to a level that would cause immediate health effects (the sources I've found said that radiation poisoning starts at around 500 milliSieverts -- people start dying around 3000).

Yesterday on Twitter a tweet was going around, supposedly someone reporting what his friend who worked at the reactor said :"We're not going to let a meltdown happen, even if it kills us." I'm sure they had to go in with that attitude.
posted by Jeanne at 9:14 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

From the BBC:
1606: A pump within the cooling system of one of the reactors at the Tokai nuclear power plant has stopped working, according to the Kyodo news agency.

and

1548: Mr Goto said the reactors at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant were suffering pressure build-ups way beyond that for which they were designed. There was a severe risk of an explosion, with radioactive material being strewn over a very wide area - beyond the 20km evacuation zone set up by the authorities

and

#
1553: He accused the government of deliberately withholding vital information that would allow outside experts help solve the problems. "For example, there has not been enough information about the hydrogen being vented. We don't know how much was vented and how radioactive it was." He also described the use of sea water to cool the cores of the reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi as highly unusual and dangerous.

and

1600: At the same time, Malcolm Crick, the secretary of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, has told the Reuters news agency: "This is not a serious public health issue at the moment. It won't be anything like Chernobyl.
posted by Windopaene at 9:18 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

So who is Mr. Goto?
posted by scalefree at 9:22 AM on March 13, 2011

The BBC live updates describe Goto only as a "former nuclear plant designer." I think this is the press conference they're referencing, with pauses between questions and answers for English translation.
posted by mediareport at 9:38 AM on March 13, 2011

List of accidents at nuclear power plants

this was interesting.

"17 April 1970 — Tonga Trench
The SNAP 27 radioisotope thermoelectric generator aboard the Lunar Module Aquarius reentered the Earth's atmosphere. The LM had been used as a "lifeboat" to help the Apollo 13 crew return to Earth after the Command Module lost electrical power. The vehicle was targeted for the Pacific Ocean to reduce the risk of contamination in the event the RTG broke up, but it is believed to have survived reentry and water impact intact. Periodic radiation checks of the area have found no signs of leakage."
posted by clavdivs at 9:40 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

rough ashlar: Germany is "upwind" from Chernobyl and separated by another whole Country and yet: Radioactive Boars Part of Chernobyl's Legacy
Germany is west of the Ukraine, but at the time of the Chernobyl desaster we had a week or so of unusual wind from the east, so Germany did not receive a high dose of radioactivity despite being upwind from Chernobyl but because Germany really was downwind from Chernobyl when the accident happened.
</derail>
posted by amf at 9:47 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

>> "The plant was rated for an 8.2 earthquake, made it through an 8.9"
>
> Actually, they upped it to a 9.0.
>
> Really... can anyone point out a single object in the entire world rated to survive a 9.0 earthquake?!

That 8.9 or 9.0 is at the epicenter, some distance offshore, not at Fukushima.

This shakemap from USGS shows "instrumental intensity" (= modified Mercalli intensity, per this USGS explanatory page), not Richter scale values. A rough equivalency table is given here.

Going by the colors on the USGS shakemap, the Mercalli intensity in the Sendai region was borderline upper VII - lower VIII, which corresponds to Richer 6.1 - 6.5. So Fukushima Dai-ichi didn't "get through" a Richter 8.9 quake. (Not that what they did experience was any walk in the park.)
posted by jfuller at 9:54 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

Where's eriko?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 9:55 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

I agree that alternatives to nuclear are also dodgy. What puzzles me is that this is being described as a once in a million freakish combination of black swan events, when in fact all of these issues were directly/indirectly caused by the earthquake and a ~9.0 once in 70-100 years is not extraordinary in Japan, and the reactor actually only withstood a ~7.5 quake at its location.

Artw: I wouldn't describe it as "whole country destroyed" when the population of japan is roughly 127 million and the number of missing reported is in the low tens of thousands. It's a reasonable expectation to ask for nuclear plants to be safe after a very large (but not off-the-charts) natural disaster.
posted by rainy at 9:55 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

I do however note the defensiveness of the pro-nuclear position right now with some concern.

Well, I would describe my own position on nukes as "regretfully accepting" rather than "pro", more or less a "worst system of producing electricity except for all the alternatives" view. I think that part of the problem is that there are a lot of people on the internet who are extremely gung-ho about nukes more because the technology is neat than anything else.
posted by atrazine at 10:03 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Radiation around the reactor exceeded the legal limit to hit 1,557 microsieverts per hour at 1:52 p.m. This rate then fell to 184 microsieverts about 50 minutes later. At this level, Edano said a hydrogen explosion is unlikely to affect human health, even one occurs.

Reference levels from earlier in the thread are here though note that most are in "mili-" not "micro-": 1, 2, 3 ("1000 microSv is what you could get from two round trip flights from Tokyo to New York").
posted by salvia at 10:05 AM on March 13, 2011

a ~9.0 once in 70-100 years is not extraordinary in Japan

There have been zero 9.0+ in Japan and only four greater than 9.0 ever. Bearing in mind that the scale is logarithmic and a 9.0 is a significantly different beast than the previous Japanese maximum of an 8.5.

Also from what I've read the plant survived the nuke but the tsunami took out the cooling system, still obviously problematic but subtly different in terms of severity and planning responses.
posted by Skorgu at 10:10 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

a ~9.0 once in 70-100 years is not extraordinary in Japan,

I don't think that's true. This is only the 5th 9.anything earthquake in 111 years, and none of the previous ones have been in Japan.
posted by KathrynT at 10:14 AM on March 13, 2011

I was kind of hoping for more eriko, but in light of the "DEFINITELY DOOM" and "DEFINITELY NOT DOOM" I guess I'll just be heading back to twitter and the much more nuanced discussion with the likes of @arclight and @touruma.

Sorry, I was asleep, and then dealing with work.

Wow, guys, WTF? We kept thing pretty nice in the thread of doom.

A few answers to a few questions.

1) Can the core undergo nuclear detonation? No. The concentration of ²³⁵U and ²³⁹Pu is far too low, there are far too many other fissionables that would prevent the full prompt-critical reaction from being sustained, and there's no inertial confinement. The hardest part about building a nuclear weapon is holding it together while it's trying to explode.

2) Can the core undergo other sorts of explosions? Very hard, but not impossible. SL-1 and Chernobyl Reactor 4 both had large steam explosions when the reaction rate jumped by a couple of orders of magnitude due to loss of control. SL-1 was an inadvertent control rod removal, Chernobyl #4 was a combination of positive void feedback, existing reactor poisons, and a bad design.

These sort of runaways are, as far as we can tell, impossible in a PWR or a BWR, which count on water as a moderator *and* coolant -- if you lose the coolant, you limit the reaction rate. As the coolant heats up, the reaction rate moderates.

BWRs and PWRs also depend on pressure to work (more pressure in a PWR, of course) -- thus, the pressure vessels are much stronger than the basic reactor vessels of graphite moderated reactors like Windscale #1 & #2, or the RBMKs at Chernobyl. You can exchange a moderate radioactive release to completly prevent this possibility -- vent steam, add water, keep the pressure low. This is basically what Fukushima #1 is doing.

3) Can we get a criticality accident? Harder, but not impossible, and actually more likely than an explosion, but you need severe core damage for it to happen. With the control rods in and coolant limited, you have a bunch of neutron absorbers in place, and with the coolant very hot, fewer prompt neutrons are being moderated into thermal neutrons, which are the ones more likely to cause a further fissioning.

But if the heat becomes extremely high, the core can melt. Liquids flow, and they'll flow down into the bottom. Intermixed with that will be bits of control rod, but it'll basically be random. Get enough fuel material together, and not enough control material, and you can reach criticality. This is often hard on people nearby. It's not an automatic thing, though -- Chernobyl #4 melted down after the explosion, but the "corium" that flowed out of the reactor and into the basement didn't go critical. This release of core material was very limited, easily contained, and while it made that building suck, it didn't do the massive damage.

The core material blown out of the top of the reactor by the steam explosion, followed by the core material carried up in the ashes of the burning graphite moderator, that's what caused the massive release of radioactive materials. If Chernobyl had just melted down and flowed into the basement, we'd have been a lot better off.

Note that the graphite fire that put this stuff up into a fly ash plume that could carry for miles won't happen here, because there's no graphite to burn.

4) Will any of these reactors run again? Depends. Fukushima 1 reactor #1, no -- even if it turns out there is very little core damage, they were going to decommission this reactor anyway. If F1#3 has a similar issue, they'll probably decommission that one as well. 4-6 are newer, and were shut down completely before the quake for maintenance, and should be fine - #6 is a new reactor, a BWR-5 rather than a BWR-4 of 2-5, or the BWR-3 that #1 is.

Shutting down #1 and #3 will cost Japan 1.24GW of power. Shutting them all down will cost them 4.69GW of power, which is a big chunk. Shutting down the four BWR-5s at Fukushima 2 would cost them another 4.4GW of power.

The big problem isn't the boric acid -- though it is an acid, and it can increase corrosion. The big problem is the chlorides in seawater. They'll need to be cleaned out before the reactor is safe to use again, and given the age of the Fukushima #1 reactors, it probably won't be worth doing so -- indeed, F1#1 is at end-of-life, anyway, and one report I saw said it was slated to be shut down permanently for decommissioning at the end of the month. There's no way they'll bother to repair it -- or even, if for some miracle, there is no core damage at all, bother to restart it.

Fun fact: The other three reactors at Chernobyl were kept running after the accident on #4. Why? They couldn't afford to lose the 3GW of power that shutting them down would have done. #2 ran until a turbine fire damaged it's power plant, and the other two were shut down at the end of the 1990s.

5) Why evacuations? Part of it, to be honest, is fear. A government think "Hmm, if I don't evacuate, and somebody gets contaminated, it will be all over the news forever." Governments also like doing something, and they can't do much at the plant proper, so an evacuation, which they can do, fits. The anti nuclear lobby has wedged it into any mind that any radiation is deadly (if so, we're all dead multiple ways after the various nuclear tests) and a government that does nothing when something bad happens is one that loses elections. See why the TSA is still around.

But there are failure modes that could result in at least short term severe releases, the biggest being a steam explosion compromising the core, and getting people away from a reactor that you don't think you have complete control over is not a bad idea. As I said before, I think the biggest problem in F1#1 is loss of sensors -- they're really not sure of the state of the reactor. If you don't know, assuming worst handleable case is a good idea.

6) Why am I not panicking? I don't automatically trust the news. It's been repeatedly filters, and when I have a Japanese Government Official Who Is Not A Nuclear Engineer talking to a Japanese report, WINANE, being translated by someone who either doesn't speak English or Japanese natively, and WINANE, then being reported by some US or UK news site by someone WINANE, then being liveblogged or tweeted by someone WINANE, and all of them get paid or renown for putting the most dramatic headlines possible on this, you should realize that all is not as it seems.

And, really, people. Worst case is a triple core compromise. Kindly go look up "atmospheric nuclear testing" for just how much radioactive material was pumped into the air. If everything goes wrong, all three reactors meltdown and escape containment it will be a mess -- but it won't even be a Chernobyl like mess, because you won't get the combination of steam explosion and graphite fire that you had there, and you have vastly better physical containment.

Double really, people. We *nuked* Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We deliberately constructed devices so that they would undergo an extended prompt critical reaction, and we dropped them on cities.

Are those cities empty wastelands, bereft of life, with nobody allowed to enter them?

And those were small weapons. Look at some of the beasts we cranked off in the Pacific, in the USSR, in Australia, in Africa, hell, in Nevada. Repeatedly.

This is a bad situation. This is not that. And not only is this not that, as we get more and more information, I can tell you this for certain.

In the end, you will be hard put to find the people who died from these reactors amongst the thousands, and now starting to look like tens-of-thousands, who died from the quake and the tsunami.

If you think the reactors are the worst thing that has happened here, you are failing badly at understanding risks.

If you want to know what scares me about Japan right now? It's the broken transport, which means more will die because they can't get supplies, and it's the statement from the JMA stating that there's a 70% of a Magnitude 7 aftershock in the next three days.
posted by eriko at 10:16 AM on March 13, 2011 [158 favorites]

once in 70-100 years is not extraordinary in Japan

Lets say every 100 years 'a black swan' happens - what's the 99 year plan to no longer be using said 100 year 'whoops, there's the black swan now you are hosed' tool?

The plant most damaged was supposed to be shut down within a couple of months - or so I've read.

And my memory on the plant model - 25 year original design life. Time will tell if some of the damage is because of the old plant beyond what it was designed for.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:17 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

There have been zero 9.0+ in Japan and only four greater than 9.0 ever. Bearing in mind that the scale is logarithmic and a 9.0 is a significantly different beast than the previous Japanese maximum of an 8.5.

My mistake, I mis-remembered that there was a 9.0 in 19th century.

However, there was an 8.3 in 2006 and this design of plants is not designed to be near epicenter of such magnitude.

The tsunami is caused by the quake so a safe design has to last when both hit in quick succession - that's just common sense.
posted by rainy at 10:29 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Really appreciate the info eriko--thanks.
posted by Go Banana at 10:31 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

> In the end, you will be hard put to find the people who died from these reactors amongst the thousands, and now starting
> to look like tens-of-thousands, who died from the quake and the tsunami.

It's just a matter of time, though (and IMHO probably not much time) before "Fukushima disaster: 10,000 people died" becomes an unkillable meme, just like "1 in 6 are hungry in the U.S."
posted by jfuller at 10:31 AM on March 13, 2011

Note that the graphite fire that put this stuff up into a fly ash plume that could carry for miles won't happen here, because there's no graphite to burn.

Are you sure about that? Quoting from Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors:

The entire “hardware” of the nuclear reactor – the pressure vessel and all pipes, pumps, coolant (water) reserves, are then encased in the third containment. The third containment is a hermetically (air tight) sealed, very thick bubble of the strongest steel. The third containment is designed, built and tested for one single purpose: To contain, indefinitely, a complete core meltdown. For that purpose, a large and thick concrete basin is cast under the pressure vessel (the second containment), which is filled with graphite, all inside the third containment. This is the so-called “core catcher”. If the core melts and the pressure vessel bursts (and eventually melts), it will catch the molten fuel and everything else. It is built in such a way that the nuclear fuel will be spread out, so it can cool down.

posted by scalefree at 10:33 AM on March 13, 2011

Rough aslar the whole point of a black swan is that is can't be planned for because it is an emegent property of te complexity and chaos of the real world. A 1:100 year event isn't a black swan it is just unlikely and in fact appears to have been accounted for. This might be considered a black swan event because while they had planned for a major earthquake, tsunami, power disruption, various failure conditions and safe shutdown operations. Only after a full incident review will we know the root cause and be able to determine if this was truly a black swan scenario merely a more common catastrophe.
posted by humanfont at 10:36 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

The tsunami is caused by the quake so a safe design has to last when both hit in quick succession - that's just common sense.

Agreed, it seems obvious in retrospect but two things.

1) The newer generations of reactors don't seem to have suffered the same fate so again, a 40-year lag in lessons learned isn't something to be ignored. I could be wrong, as others have said getting solid information is difficult but it seems like a design flaw that has been long since corrected. Obviously anyone who knows more specifically and corrects or corroborates me would be appreciated.

2) I honestly have no idea what requirements or guidelines there are for protecting against tsunamis. I mean really before the Banda Aceh wave all the previous events in wikipedia are before 1908. It doesn't seem like something that had really been planned for in any industry. Obviously nuclear plants are and should be held to a higher standard but this is an event that erased entire towns, it's not something that was foreseen by anyone, even the otherwise extremely well prepared Japanese.

eriko, beers are on me if you're in NYC ever.
posted by Skorgu at 10:39 AM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

Scroll down for a roll-over before/after of the plant. It's about half way down.
posted by warbaby at 10:40 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

scalefree - "If the core melts and the pressure vessel bursts (and eventually melts), it will catch the molten fuel and everything else. It is built in such a way that the nuclear fuel will be spread out, so it can cool down."
posted by warbaby at 10:48 AM on March 13, 2011

eriko: If you want to know what scares me about Japan right now? It's the broken transport, which means more will die because they can't get supplies, and it's the statement from the JMA stating that there's a 70% of a Magnitude 7 aftershock in the next three days.

I think I missed this, do you have a source? (I don't doubt it validity, I'm just afraid to go up thread.)

scalefree: Are you sure about that?

From my understanding (someone more knowledgable than me please correct me if I'm wrong), by the time energy from the reactor core would have reached the graphite of the second containment, it won't be enough to burn graphite. The one time I can think of a graphite fire from a nuclear incident is the Windscale Fire, where the core itself was entirely made of graphite.
posted by thebestsophist at 10:54 AM on March 13, 2011

scody writes "Uh, plenty of people in Southern California where our public transportation is for shit? I can name any number of colleagues and family members who put in 100-200 miles a day on a regular basis. "

I know of a few people like that here too in extenuating circumstances but they are way at the end of the long tail of averages. 200 miles is around 4 hours a day driving. On a eight hour work day you are spending half again as much time travelling back and forth. I hated the 25 minute commute I used to have. 2 hours is just crazy. It would be like working a part time job on top of your regular job.

rough ashlar writes "And even *IF* there were enough magical atom splitters in service - how can you effectively electrify 800 HP farm tractors or have enough resources to electrify the far flung transport systems?"

Horsepower requirements for electrical motors are much lower than for IC motors to do the same job. And the tech already exists, many mining operations use mobile, electric powered, heavy equipment.
posted by Mitheral at 10:56 AM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Skorgu: From what I heard, though, the new designs are safe if there's a loss of control but not sure if that's still true in case they're structurally compromised by a quake or by a terrorist attack or something like that.

For Tsunamis, I think you want this link: 200s tsunamis
posted by rainy at 10:56 AM on March 13, 2011

My mistake, I mis-remembered that there was a 9.0 in 19th century.

However, there was an 8.3 in 2006 and this design of plants is not designed to be near epicenter of such magnitude.

You know those numbers aren't even CLOSE, right?

I mean, an 8.3 is about 2.3 metric gigatons of TNT. a 9.0 is 32 metric gigatons. That's about 14 times more powerful. That's like me pointing out that my car can't get from North Jersey to San Antonio on one tank of gas, and you counter, "are you sure? Cause I've seen it get to Atlantic City once, and that seems pretty much the same thing."
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 10:56 AM on March 13, 2011

John Kenneth: Yes, I understand that, but the Fukushima plant did not experience even an 8.3M. So your car analogy is about as relevant as a statistically average internet thread car analogy. My point wasn't that an 8.3 is close to 9.0, but that these plants aren't designed to withstand either of those, and we know that either of those are possible.
posted by rainy at 11:01 AM on March 13, 2011

Fair enough, misread your point.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 11:08 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

thebestsophist, I've also heard that NHK has been reporting that there's a 70% chance of a magnitude 7 quake in the next 3 days.

Reuters link.
posted by Jeanne at 11:09 AM on March 13, 2011

Lets say every 100 years 'a black swan' happens - what's the 99 year plan to no longer be using said 100 year 'whoops, there's the black swan now you are hosed' tool?

Let's say popular books posed as serious tomes or serious books most people only know by summary don't foster constructive discussions. If you're planning for a black swan, you're doing it wrong.
posted by yerfatma at 11:14 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

The tsunami is caused by the quake so a safe design has to last when both hit in quick succession - that's just common sense.

Not all quakes cause tsunamis. Not all tsunamis are caused by quakes (but most are.)

Now, all 9+ megathrust earthquakes do seem to cause tsunamis, but they are very rare -- so rare that it might be coincidence! An M_w 8.5 earthquake near Sumatra in the Indian ocean produced no tsunami. A 9.1 near the same spot killed or injured over a quarter million by tsunami.

To contain, indefinitely, a complete core meltdown. For that purpose, a large and thick concrete basin is cast under the pressure vessel (the second containment), which is filled with graphite, all inside the third containment. This is the so-called “core catcher”. If the core melts and the pressure vessel bursts (and eventually melts), it will catch the molten fuel and everything else. It is built in such a way that the nuclear fuel will be spread out, so it can cool down.

That would be news to me -- and this graphite wouldn't be exposed to air, like the moderator in Chernobyl #4 was. The Fuel Pool (which is the core catcher on these BWR) is stated to be reinforced concrete with a cooling system, not graphite. I'm looking for the full design documents on a GE BWR-3 with a Mark I containment.

This is a good drawing (with a couple of annotations) on the basic layout. Note the torus below. This is where vented steam goes to condense, and if there was a full core meltdown, this is where it would flow.

Remember -- there are a lot of reactor designs out there. The most common BWRs are GE BWR 1 through 6, and the ABWR. In design is the ESBWR. This is a BWR-3 with a Mark 1 containment, if it's not talking about an BWR-3 with an Mark 1 containment, it's not actually telling you anything about Fukushima 1 Reactor 1.
posted by eriko at 11:14 AM on March 13, 2011 [5 favorites]

Nuclear Energy 101: Inside the "Black Box" of Power Plants.
posted by ericb at 11:58 AM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Lots of great pictures and diagrams of BWR's
posted by Mach5 at 12:04 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Obviously nuclear plants are and should be held to a higher standard but this is an event that erased entire towns, it's not something that was foreseen by anyone, even the otherwise extremely well prepared Japanese.

Fine Arts nuclear expert weighing in.

Sorry, but this does feel apologist. I have no conception of what a 9.0 earthquake is like. But history does. Japan, specifically, knows that it's sitting in possibly the single most volatile seismic zone on the planet, so if you were betting man, betting on a 9.0 earthquake happening anywhere, you'd have to consider Japan. So, no, I don't buy the argument that this situation is inconceivable.

As for the tsunami threat, well, as has been much discussed, they tend to come with big deal earthquakes. Which gets us to how to ensure that our potentially apocalyptic "projects" survive them. One thought that comes instantly to mind is don't build them very close to the ocean. But what if that's the only way to do it? How about ensuring that the "project" is not just secure from collapse during (yes) a 9.0 earthquake, but also that it has on site all the resources it requires to continue to function (at least in a "harm reduction" mode) in a completely self-contained way for say, a period of weeks.

Because bad as the tsunami is (and looks), it's not unprecedented. I suspect there's a study on a table somewhere that depicts a scenario exactly like what we've seen. Major earthquake! Tsunami wave rises and wipes clean all "low lying" land along a more or less predictable flood plain.

If the response to this line of reasoning is that such precautions are not economically feasible, then my response is that nuclear power plants in known severe earthquake/tsunami zones are not feasible.

Hind sight's always 20-20, I agree, but I'm calling bullshit that no one saw something like this coming. I've been seeing it my nightmares since I was a kid.
posted by philip-random at 12:53 PM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Meta
posted by adamvasco at 12:57 PM on March 13, 2011

Sorry, but this does feel apologist. I have no conception of what a 9.0 earthquake is like. But history does. Japan, specifically, knows that it's sitting in possibly the single most volatile seismic zone on the planet, so if you were betting man, betting on a 9.0 earthquake happening anywhere, you'd have to consider Japan. So, no, I don't buy the argument that this situation is inconceivable.

Japanese nuclear power plants were first planned and built starting around 50 years ago, before there was good understanding of plate tectonics and continental drift.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:06 PM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

...then my response is that nuclear power plants in known severe earthquake/tsunami zones are not feasible.

Indeed they may well not be. Chances are that the extremely safety conscious Japanese would not build nuclear power plants at all if they had other energy resources.
posted by atrazine at 1:06 PM on March 13, 2011

Where does all the seawater go that is being pump into the reactor? Does it stay in the secondary containment shell or is it a pass through circuit back to the sea?
posted by Jumpin Jack Flash at 1:06 PM on March 13, 2011

Jumpin Jack Flash, I think the seawater is flashing to steam in the reactor and being vented. They're pumping it in as fast as possible to keep the fuel covered with liquid water. This steam is mildly radioactive but apparently only contains short lived radio-isotopes.
posted by atrazine at 1:19 PM on March 13, 2011

It's just a matter of time, though (and IMHO probably not much time) before "Fukushima disaster: 10,000 people died" becomes an unkillable meme, just like "1 in 6 are hungry in the U.S."

Yes. I was having exactly the same thought.

Nuclear power? No, thanks. Do you want our cities to look like that wasteland in Sendai? (cue picture of Sendai devastated by tsunami)
posted by sour cream at 1:44 PM on March 13, 2011

Couple interesting things in this nytimes article:

A day after an explosion at one reactor [at Fukishima Daiichi], Japanese nuclear officials said Sunday that operators at the plant had suffered a setback trying to bring the second reactor thought to be in partial meltdown there under control. The operators need to inject water to help cool the reactor and keep it from proceeding to a full meltdown, but a valve malfunctioned on Sunday, hampering their efforts for much of the day...

At a late-night press conference, officials at Tokyo Electric Power Co., which runs the plant, said the valve had been fixed, but said water levels had not yet begun rising...

For some time, the plant was able to operate in a battery-controlled cooling mode. Tokyo Electric Power said that by Saturday morning it had also installed a mobile generator to ensure that the cooling system would continue operating even after reserve battery power was depleted. Even so, the company said it needed to conduct “controlled containment venting” in order to avoid an “uncontrolled rupture and damage” to the containment unit.

Why the controlled release of pressure did not succeed in addressing the problem was not immediately explained. Tokyo Electric Power and government nuclear safety officials also did not explain the precise sequence of failures at the plant." (emphasis mine)

posted by BungaDunga at 2:11 PM on March 13, 2011

Cliff Mass updated potential release trajectories.
posted by mwhybark at 2:15 PM on March 13, 2011

argh, hit 'post' instead of 'link.' trying again:

Cliff Mass updated potential release trajectories.
posted by mwhybark at 2:16 PM on March 13, 2011

Latest PDF on radiation measurement at Daiichi (Japanese)

Levels over 1000 microSieverts per hour were measured yesterday; since 2 p.m. yesterday (Japan time) all measurements have been under the legal limit of 500 microSieverts/hour, and the radiation at the main gate has gone down from about 10 microSv/hour to 4.
posted by Jeanne at 2:19 PM on March 13, 2011

I found detailed information on the containment structure of Fukushima-1 Unit-1, a GE Mark-I design, in Assessment and management of ageing of major nuclear power plant components important to safety: metal components of BWR containment systems, IAEA-TECDOC-1181, International Atomic Energy Agency, October 2000.

Section 2.2.1, "General Electric (GE) Mark I, II, and III designs" has a detailed cutaway diagram, Figure 2.1 "GE-BWR Mark I design" that shows the reactor vessel surrounded by a steel drywell in turn surrounded by reinforced concrete (secondary concrete shield wall)
Also shown are the location of the fuel storage pool and pressure suppression chamber (the torus around the base of the reactor).

Table 2.2 gives key design parameters for the containment system. The drywall for example has a design temperature of 139 - 171C and a design overpressure of 3.94 - 4.36 bar. The suppression chamber has the same overpressure range and the same lower end for the design temperature, but a high end of only 155C.

The secondary concrete shield wall is 123- 185cm thick. There are further details on the number and size of various access hatches and holes for instrumentation and piping.

Sections 3.2 and 4.1 describe mechanisms and effects of corrosion that can cause thinning of the steel used in the reactor. "Historical data for corrosion of carbon steel exposed to an industrial environment indicate general corrosion rates in the range of 0.003 to 0.03 mm/yr." (Section 4.1.1). Localized corrosion (Section 4.1.2) potentially introduces problems via pitting, and "crevice corrosion" that are faster to attack and harder to detect. Intense heat fluctuations and mechanical vibration introduce further forms of potential weakness in the steel.

Table 4.2, "Summary of selected GE BWR Mark series containment components and potential ageing mechanisms" shows particular areas for each form of ageing on the Mark-I design used by the Fukushima-1 Unit-1 reactor.

Given the extended operational life of this reactor, plus the intense stresses placed on this reactor in the past few days, I think the post-event analysis of this reactor will look closely at just how fatigued and close to rupture various parts of the containment vessel were during cooldown.
posted by zippy at 2:21 PM on March 13, 2011 [6 favorites]

This steam is mildly radioactive but apparently only contains short lived radio-isotopes.

It's also being condensed and filtered. The primary isotope in the coolant is ¹⁶N, which is a fairly nasty gamma emitter (3.7MeV -- bad) but has a half life of 7.1 seconds (good) and decays to ¹⁶O, which is awesome, as far as products released from reactors go -- stable, common oxygen. If it takes 5 minutes to reach you, you're probably not even going to sense it. You'd have halved the number of atoms 42 times, so if release 2⁴² atoms of ¹⁶N -- which is 4,398,046,511,104 of them -- then, on average, there would be one left.

The most worrisome isotope likely to come out of F1#1 is ¹³¹I, commonly known as radio-iodine. This is a milder gamma and strong beta emitter, which gives the beta particles decent penetration into tissue. Worse, your thyroid *likes* iodine, so it wants to concentrate it there -- so it stacks up there and causes long term problems. This is why various forms of normal iodine are handed out -- the idea is to saturate the thyroid, so that any radio-iodine that gets into you will just be excreted, rather than stored. The main reason it's worrisome is that it's a common byproduct of this reaction. Half life is short -- 8 days -- so in a month, for every 13 atoms released, one will be left, after two months, one of every 181 will be gone, after a year, well, that's 2⁴⁵ halvings, multiply that rather big number up there by 8, and of all of those atoms, one will be left.

In general -- half lives under 10 seconds stop being an issue after 10 minutes. Half lives under 10 days stop being a problem in a year. It's the medium and long term ones that are more bothersome -- the biggest three being ¹³⁴Cs,¹³⁷Cs and ⁹⁰Sr. These will be contained in the fuel rods, unless they're damaged -- which is why the detection of them implies fuel rod damage.

Also, in general -- larger atoms will be easier to trap than smaller ones. Shorter half-lives will have more energetic releases, but don't last as long. Barring other issues, you can hold alpha emitters in your hand and receive no dose, you can hold a beta emitter in your gloved hand and receive little to no dose. You don't want to hold onto gamma emitters or neutron sources at all.

This is just radioactivity mind you. I'd have no problem holding a kilogram of ²³⁸U in my hand -- it's an alpha emitter. I'd have no problem holding a kilogram of ²³⁵U -- though the spontaneous emission of ²⁰⁶Pb, ²⁰⁷Pb and ²⁰⁸Pb from the guards is a bit worrisome. I would have a huge problem holding a kilogram of ²³⁸Pu in my hand. It's a slightly more powerful alpha emitter, so it also wouldn't penetrate the skin, but it is so active that it would be glowing red hot and burn the hell out of my hand. This property -- .5W emitted heat per gram, and only alpha radiation, makes it the ideal fuel for RTGs used to power spacecraft.

So -- there's more than just the emissions from a radioactive substance when you are looking at possible harm. Radioactive noble gases have a hard time interacting, so they don't accumulate unless you build them a place to do so (see basements, Radon.) I would worry about radioactive fluorine, but fuck, it's fluorine, if your dealing with elemental F, you've already lost, and if it's already combined with something, it's not going anywhere, walk away from it.
posted by eriko at 2:44 PM on March 13, 2011 [31 favorites]

An excellent list of ways to help Japan.
posted by nickyskye at 2:46 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Because bad as the tsunami is (and looks), it's not unprecedented. I suspect there's a study on a table somewhere that depicts a scenario exactly like what we've seen. Major earthquake! Tsunami wave rises and wipes clean all "low lying" land along a more or less predictable flood plain.

Previously it was noted that the plant in question was built at 2x the height of the estimated worst case tsunami scenario based on studies. Japan has had lots of earth quakes and lots of tsunamis but this kind of quake is really unprecedented in modern recorded history.
posted by humanfont at 4:48 PM on March 13, 2011

but this kind of quake is really unprecedented in modern recorded history.

Sure, if by "modern recorded history" you mean "the last 6 years". Since there was a 9.1 in 2005. And several 8.8s or higher since 1977.
posted by Justinian at 4:56 PM on March 13, 2011

Does anyone have a resource that lists the total amount of radiation released by these disasters? Even an estimate?
posted by KathrynT at 5:01 PM on March 13, 2011

Just a note on the idea of "black swans" and "strongest quake ever" -- keep in mind the "strongest ever" is just since we've had seismographs, which is only around 100 years. (Media will be inclined to say "biggest ever" because it sounds more impressive, but it's inaccurate.)

So in 100 years we've had several quakes of this size worldwide, and we have (post plate tectonics) a reasonable understanding of the mechanism of quakes so we have a sense of which areas are likely to have monster quakes. A really big earthquake in Japan or off the coast (and a really big ensuing tsunami) is absolutely inevitable - even if it's a one/100 years, or two/100 years, it's still highly foreseeable. So in that sense, not a black swan (if black swan means unforeseeable).

These are exactly the things we should be designing critical infrastructure for. Mostly Japan does a great job at this with strong building codes, much better than the US does. I agree that it's strange that, in designing nuclear plants in an earthquake/tsunami vulnerable area, you're allowed (or, were at one time allowed) to assume that an event which knocks AC power offline will leave your diesel generators untouched.

Thanks for everyone who's bringing good info to the thread, this has been very informative.
posted by LobsterMitten at 5:13 PM on March 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

Does anyone have a resource that lists the total amount of radiation released by these disasters? Even an estimate?

The only one that matters on this scale is Chernobyl. It release so much more radiation than everything else combined that they don't even rate as margin of error stuff. We're talking like 100,000x as much radiation as the rest combined.
posted by Justinian at 5:13 PM on March 13, 2011

Sure, if by "modern recorded history" you mean "the last 6 years". Since there was a 9.1 in 2005. And several 8.8s or higher since 1977.

Were those in Japan where they have tsunami warning systems, advanced civil defense and emergency preparedness drills a modern and highly industrialized infrastructure built to earthquake codes as well as computer models. This was a unique event in modern Japan.
posted by humanfont at 5:18 PM on March 13, 2011

Robert Apthorpe - aka @arclight - interview with CNN.
posted by Dr. Zira at 5:23 PM on March 13, 2011 [4 favorites]

This just in from NHK: at nuclear plant #2, the cooling system has been brought back online at reactor 1 and reactor 2. (They're still worried about reactor 4, but working on it). Radiation levels at plant #2 continue to be pretty low -- less than 1 microSievert per hour.

Around 2 a.m, the radiation levels at plant #1 spiked up over the legal limit again, but have gone back under it.
posted by Jeanne at 5:25 PM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

LobsterMitten: Valid points, however the thing is that the designers didn't "assume that an event which knocks AC power offline will leave your diesel generators untouched". They assumed that they would be able to get power back, in one form or another, before their onsite batteries (which I might add were unaffected by the wave, at least as far as their usage shows) went dead. You could say this assumption is unreasonalbe of course, and you might be 100% right depends on your inclinations, but I just want to get it straight that this system has a deeply layered structure of defenses, some of which ARE still working exactly as designed.

Honestly, if the designers assumed anything it was that things would fail and they needed redundancy. That's evident in the fact that the core is holding firm. Not easily, not prettily but I feel like few things should be expected to be either after a 9.0 earthquake and a devastating tsunami smacking the country.
posted by RolandOfEld at 5:38 PM on March 13, 2011 [5 favorites]

That's a less than useful definition of unique. You're essentially saying that the earthquake was unique because it happened near Japan. Sure, and if it had happened near San Francisco you could say the same thing. Or Iran. Or India. Or anywhere

No it's unique because we've thrown engineering resources at this problem to a much greater degree than in those locations. The West Coast of the United States is no where close to this level of engineering, planning and preparedness. This isn't Chile or Indonesia, Pakistan, Haiti or somewhere expected to be flattened. This is the most advanced, prepared place in the world and they just got smashed to peices. Every building code in earthquake zones will be updated because of this in a way that no other event has.

Add into this the as yet undetermined impact to the global economy. Consider that 20% of the electrical capacity of the 3rd or 4th largest economy in the world has been stopped. Some
Of this capacity will take a decade to come back online if ever. That is not something we've ever experienced before
posted by humanfont at 5:48 PM on March 13, 2011

Ryugo Hayano, a physicist at Tokyo University, has tweeted that the seawater injection in plant 1, reactor 3 is not succeeding in cooling, and they are going to have to vent the hydrogen that is building up. Workers are being temporarily evacuated.
posted by Jeanne at 5:58 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm posting this link to the NEI page on this incident again. It provides a concise and accurate accounting of the situation with the available data. Not up-to-the-minute but it is updated reasonably frequently. Yes, the NEI is an industry organization.
posted by polyhedron at 6:01 PM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

One more datapoint here. From what i have gathered quickly global electricity production is 20k Terawatt hours/year. Japan produces 1000twH/year and 20% of that is offline. Thus the net drop in global electricity output is 2%. Electricity production in the short run ties directly to economic output and in the long run is a multiplier of 2x-5x based on various studies iirc. Thus this drop in production could cause a 4-10% decline in Japanese GDP. Because of the long time scales required to build a nuclear plant vs. other electricity plants there will perhaps be some greater demand in the short run for natural gas or oil to meet short term production needs.
posted by humanfont at 6:20 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Following on Humanfront's observation, with a huge chunk of power generation either knocked out or certain to be shut down for inspection, vast numvers of dead and wounded, destroyed roads, destroyed ports, destroyed ships, damaged refineries, displaced families, and destroyed water treatment systems, it is going to take a lot of time and money for Japan to return to pre-quake life.
posted by zippy at 6:24 PM on March 13, 2011

I've been watching NHK World, they repeat segments a lot but it's about a billion times better than CNN.
posted by dialetheia at 6:34 PM on March 13, 2011

There is less reporting going on of the nuclear stuff. I was watching NHK Japan this morning and it was all whether the trains were running and when the planned outages were going to be. There's just not much news coming out right now.
posted by Jeanne at 6:38 PM on March 13, 2011

I haven't been awake-- DST fucks with me large-- and my coworker's been offline (we don't get a lot of free weekends lately). It seems that the amount of new info from TEPCO has slowed, looking at my Twitter feed.

My nuke geek would ping me if he felt anything was notable enough to be alarmed about, so I'm taking the relative quiet as a good sign.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 6:42 PM on March 13, 2011

Roland of Eld: Totally fair. I was saying that about the diesel generators based on something said in - I think - the Scientific American roundup (could have been one of the other scientist roundups posted above) about how the design made an assumption about keeping the generators running which was - the author thought - not a safe assumption to make in the event of "common cause" failures (where a single event causes both the power grid to go down and the generators to go down). Should have been more clear that I was repeating what I took it someone else was saying.

But in response to one or two comments (very much a minority) that have said "it's amazing it's kept going under these conditions", that's true but also they absolutely should be designing these systems to survive big quake + tsunami if they're going to build them in Japan in the first place. IT's misleading if news outlets are saying "biggest quake ever" as if it means "designers of the reactor could not have foreseen such an event" - they should absolutely have foreseen such an event and the failsafe systems and protocols should be designed around events of this size.

(I have a great deal of respect for civil engineers and the other people who work hard and ingeniously to make these and other critical systems withstand unbelievable physical forces, it's amazing what they're able to accomplish and I'm not at all slagging them. I'm saying that the media coverage of it, and thus the lay opinion on it, NEEDS to emphasize that these very large events are INEVITABLE in certain places and systems should be designed and built with them in mind, and we should be willing to put money into designing for 100 or 200 year events.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 6:52 PM on March 13, 2011

U.S. Detects Radiation 60 Miles From Stricken Plant. Not happy.
posted by scalefree at 6:54 PM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

The only one that matters on this scale is Chernobyl.

No, I mean by these particular reactors in Japan, in damage taken from the 3/11 earthquake and tsunami. Not all nuke disasters ever.
posted by KathrynT at 7:03 PM on March 13, 2011

The NEI "UPDATE AS OF 7:00 P.M. EDT, SUNDAY, MARCH 13:" says that "Control rods have been successfully inserted at all of the reactors, thereby ending the chain reaction."

Is that right? Is the reaction actually ended? Or is there a technical distinction I'm missing?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:06 PM on March 13, 2011

Scalefree: Thanks for that article. That's the most comprehensive writeup of the situation I've seen from any sort of mainstream media so far.
posted by jferg at 7:06 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

The part I shoud've highlighted is this:

Japanese reactor operators now have little choice but to periodically release radioactive steam until the radioactive elements in the fuel of the stricken reactors stop generating intense heat, a process that can continue for a year or more even after the fission process has stopped. To control that heat, the plant’s operator must constantly try to flood the reactors with seawater, then release the resulting radioactive steam into the atmosphere, several experts familiar with the design of the Daiichi facility said. That suggests that the 200,000 people who have been evacuated may not be able to return to their homes for a considerable period and that shifts in the wind could blow radioactive materials toward Japanese cities rather than out to sea.

posted by scalefree at 7:10 PM on March 13, 2011

lobstermitten: these very large events are INEVITABLE in certain places and systems should be designed and built with them in mind, and we should be willing to put money into designing for 100 or 200 year events.

I haven't seen the safety case for these reactors, so I don't know whether the diesel generators were supposed to be available after an event like this. If so, clearly the design / procedures need revising.

Even if they missed this particular scenario, the reactor design includes several layers of "defense in depth" - ie, planning for the unforeseen. These designs have been (so far) working to prevent massive releases of radiation, despite the damage inflicted to the reactor. Every procedure you've heard TEPCO use this weekend have been carefully planned and studied in advance. Trust me, this kind of planning (often requiring full scale testing) is VERY expensive.

In short, the reactor designers have planned for the worst case. Thank god.
posted by Popular Ethics at 7:14 PM on March 13, 2011

(as I mentioned in another thread, I'm completely willing to eat my words if things get substantially worse)
posted by Popular Ethics at 7:17 PM on March 13, 2011

floam, OK, gotcha. It's not a "chain" reaction.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:22 PM on March 13, 2011

There has been a sound of an explosion at reactor 3 of Daiichi. This may be the same type of hydrogen explosion as at reactor 1, since they've been experiencing a buildup in pressure related to the pumped-in seawater vaporizing to steam.
posted by Jeanne at 7:23 PM on March 13, 2011

explosion at reactor #3 being shown on the NHK live feed. white steam-like smoke coming out the top.
posted by Mach5 at 7:23 PM on March 13, 2011

ChurchHatesTucker: The NEI "UPDATE AS OF 7:00 P.M. EDT, SUNDAY, MARCH 13:" says that "Control rods have been successfully inserted at all of the reactors, thereby ending the chain reaction."
Is that right? Is the reaction actually ended? Or is there a technical distinction I'm missing?

That NEI update is misleading, because it contains old news. The control rods were inserted immediately after (during?) the earthquake, and all reactors have been "shut down" since then. The problem is that, like dousing a really big fire, the coals remain hot for days. Without the mechanisms for keeping the "coals" cool, the operators have been struggling to keep them from melting the reactor. According to that same update, their current approach (sea water flooding) appears to be working.
posted by Popular Ethics at 7:23 PM on March 13, 2011

(This is according to Ryugo Hayano's twitter feed.)
posted by Jeanne at 7:24 PM on March 13, 2011

BBC World News reporting another 3m tidal wave about to make landfall. Also another explosion at one of the NP plants. Just. Awful.
posted by wowbobwow at 7:26 PM on March 13, 2011

Lots of reports on Twitter now reporting another explosion at unit 3, likely another hydrogen explosion as at unit 1 yesterday. xenijardin is retweeting a lot of them: "explosion at unit 3 of Fukushima No. 1 confirmed on NHK TV right now, possibility of hydrogen explosion, if so would not be reactor #jpquake"; "Explosion at Fukushima Reactor 3. The walls and ceiling are gone."
posted by gerryblog at 7:30 PM on March 13, 2011

I nkow that this is thread is all about nukes and grar grar and whatnot, but has anybody noticed that there seems to be an uptick in huge earthquakes lately?

Wikipedia says that the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 13th and 16th largest earthquakes ever have taken place within the last five or six years, with the 3rd and 6th largest ever taking place within a year of each other (and on the opposite sides of the same plate, if I'm not mistaken).

It makes me wonder if earthquakes are like sunspots, with flurries of activity followed by long periods of inactivity.
posted by Avenger at 7:31 PM on March 13, 2011

New York Times: U.S. Detects Radiation 60 Miles From Stricken Plant. via.

Live feed of info re new tsunami and nuclear situation, in Japanese.
posted by nickyskye at 7:31 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

NHK reporting that containment has not been compromised at the reactor where the explosion happened.
posted by Jeanne at 7:31 PM on March 13, 2011

People are saying the tsunami reports were a false alarm, too.
posted by gerryblog at 7:33 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Tepco had been predicting a hydrogen explosion at unit 3 since early this morning (eastern). I had hoped they would avoid it.
posted by Popular Ethics at 7:36 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Al Jazeera is still reporting that they're informed by the military that the tsunami warning is real. They've pulled their reporters back.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:43 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

From nickyskye's NYT article:

Instead the operators are dumping seawater into the vessel, and letting it cool the fuel by boiling. But as it boils, pressure rises too high to pump in more water, so they have to vent the vessel to the atmosphere, and feed in more water, a procedure known as “feed and bleed.”

so this is the explanation I've been waiting for. Maybe the answer is upthread, but I've been in and out all day....

They aren't circulating seawater, they're injecting it at intervals and the only way the heat is leaving is as steam. This is what is keeping the water level low enough to expose some of the core: you can't get hot enough to form hydrogen, distort metal, melt shit, etc., if it's under water.

The problem is the pumps may not be able to push enough pressure so they have to vent until they can pump, but pumping raises the water level, so the pressure rises until the pumps can't push against it, so they have to wait for enough to boil off and vent so the pressure drops, which exposes the top of the core, which gets too hot again, rinse, lather, repeat.

This is going to be a long time cooling down.

To look on the bright side, with no walls or roof, the hydrogen can't explode in loading bay anymore. /sarcasm
posted by warbaby at 7:49 PM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

Here's what I was referring to about planning for both AC power to be off and the diesel generators to be offline as well. I totally endorse what Roland of Eld and Popular Ethics said above about how it's good that they have layers of redundant safeguards and drills and the professionalism of the people working on this problem.

Scientific American quotes Ken Bergeron explaining the situation at the reactors:

"Reactor analysts like to categorize potential reactor accidents into groups," said Bergeron, who did research on nuclear reactor accident simulation at Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. "And the type of accident that is occurring in Japan is known as a station blackout. It means loss of offsite AC power—power lines are down—and then a subsequent failure of emergency power on site—the diesel generators. It is considered to be extremely unlikely, but the station blackout has been one of the great concerns for decades.

"The probability of this occurring is hard to calculate primarily because of the possibility of what are called common-cause accidents, where the loss of offsite power and of onsite power are caused by the same thing. In this case, it was the earthquake and tsunami. So we're in uncharted territory, we're in a land where probability says we shouldn't be. And we're hoping that all of the barriers to release of radioactivity will not fail."

The rest of that article, which is fairly short and accessible, does a nice job of explaining what's going on in general terms.
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:56 PM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Tsunami alert has been cancelled
posted by wowbobwow at 7:57 PM on March 13, 2011

warbaby Instead the operators are dumping seawater into the vessel, and letting it cool the fuel by boiling. But as it boils, pressure rises too high to pump in more water, so they have to vent the vessel to the atmosphere, and feed in more water, a procedure known as “feed and bleed.”

I would not have described what they're doing that way. (I'm also not sure "Feed and Bleed", as it's commonly understood, is a good moniker). Think of it this way: If you put a closed jar of water in a microwave and get the water boiling, the water level will drop and the pressure in the jar will increase because steam occupies many times more space than water. You could try to inject more water in there to increase the water level, but doing so only increases the pressure further as you try to stuff more water in. The only* way to keep a steady pressure and temperature while the microwave is still on is to get the steam out at the same rate it's being created (and simultaneously put the same amount of water in).

Of course you have to put that steam somewhere. Originally they were putting it in the building (and out through the filtered stack, presumably), but that made hydrogen levels inside rise. Now that they've had a hydrogen explosion, I'm not sure if the filtered ventilation system is still working. In any event, the steam ends up in the atmosphere carrying whatever radionuclides it picked up from the reactor. This will continue as long as the reactor remains hot enough to boil water, which will be days. We have to see how much radioactivity this process will release.

* the only way they have left that is. The reactor normally has heat exchangers for this kind of thing, but they were knocked out with the diesels. Newer BWRs (and other reactors) have additional "passive" heat sinks (rooms full of water) for just such an occasion.
posted by Popular Ethics at 8:09 PM on March 13, 2011

Did anybody catch the TEPCO news conference they just showed on NHK World? I couldn't tell if he was saying that the water level is 1800 mm above or below the height of the fuel rods. I think the translator said "negative 1800 mm" but I didn't quite catch it.
posted by dialetheia at 8:16 PM on March 13, 2011

Japanese reactor operators now have little choice but to periodically release radioactive steam until the radioactive elements in the fuel of the stricken reactors stop generating intense heat, a process that can continue for a year or more even after the fission process has stopped. To control that heat, the plant’s operator must constantly try to flood the reactors with seawater, then release the resulting radioactive steam into the atmosphere

There's something simple and basic that I don't understand. When the reactors are operating, they generate a heck of a lot more heat than they are generating now, yet there is no flooding and steam/radiation release.

What do they do with an operating reactor to keep it overheating that they can't do now with a much cooler non-operating reactor?
posted by eye of newt at 8:17 PM on March 13, 2011

...keep it from overheating
posted by eye of newt at 8:18 PM on March 13, 2011

The water level is 1800 mm below the height of the fuel rods.

7 people are missing and 3 people injured in the hydrogen explosion.
posted by Jeanne at 8:18 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

What do they do with an operating reactor to keep it overheating that they can't do now with a much cooler non-operating reactor?

In this particular design, have pumps running water through cooling systems. The pumps are no longer working, hence the problem.
posted by jlkr at 8:23 PM on March 13, 2011

What do they do with an operating reactor to keep it overheating that they can't do now with a much cooler non-operating reactor?

Run the steam through turbines which remove a great deal of the energy, and then through additional cooling systems. The turbines are blocked off to during the shutdown process, and the additional cooling systems require power that is out.
posted by nomisxid at 8:25 PM on March 13, 2011

The missing have been found. 6 people injured in all.
posted by Jeanne at 8:27 PM on March 13, 2011

From what I've read in the last bit form arclight and others it seems that we are now at the point in the cool down where the odds of total long term impact radiation nightmare are now much much lower. We arn't out of the woods, but each hour that goes by the odds drop dramatically and they are now fairly low. This will be recorded as a whistling past the graveyard moment vs. something akin to Deep Water Horizon that just goes on for month without an end in sight. There will be a continued evacuation zone, and perhaps some further steam releases but we're talking days to conclusion at this point, with a limited number of potential events and growing confidence in resolution.

We can probably now return to the FUCK the whole north east coast of Japan is in ruins, ten thousand or more are dead/missing and a mass of people are homeless. I think congress should enact legislation to immediately allow Japanese refugees to enter the US on an expedited refugee visa.
posted by humanfont at 8:28 PM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

So they are periodically cycling new seawater in as the water within the reactor keeps on boiling off/gets broken down into hydrogen and oxygen gases. Forgive my ignorance but what would be the impact of continously cycling seawater through the reactor vessel? Cold water in hot water out. I understand that some particles would be flushed but it seems like you either have the choice of venting steam or flushing into the ocean.
posted by vuron at 8:30 PM on March 13, 2011

More heat is removed by turning the water to steam.
posted by Jumpin Jack Flash at 8:32 PM on March 13, 2011

There's something simple and basic that I don't understand. When the reactors are operating, they generate a heck of a lot more heat than they are generating now, yet there is no flooding and steam/radiation release.

What do they do with an operating reactor to keep it overheating that they can't do now with a much cooler non-operating reactor?

A normal power generator is a closed cycle -- water comes in, it generates steam, the steam turns a turbine, then the steam is condensed back to water again and the cycle starts over again. The whole point of a nuclear power generator (or any power generator) is to heat water and cool it again.

That cycle is what was stopped and why they need an alternative method to cycle water and heat through.
posted by empath at 8:33 PM on March 13, 2011

eye of newt: What do they do with an operating reactor to keep it overheating that they can't do now with a much cooler non-operating reactor?

Good question! The steam generated by the reactor normally runs through turbines to reduce it's pressure (that's how we get power), then condensors (big heat exchangers) to cool it back to a liquid state. Unfortunately you need electric power to pump cooling water, so the condensors are not available. They've used up the volume of water stored in the building for emergencies (the pressure suppression chamber), so the only "heat sink" they have left is the atmosphere.

Here's an exhaustive overview of the various BWR systems, if you're ambitious. I'll try to dig up something simpler.
posted by Popular Ethics at 8:33 PM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

Instead the operators are dumping seawater into the vessel, and letting it cool the fuel by boiling. But as it boils, pressure rises too high to pump in more water, so they have to vent the vessel to the atmosphere, and feed in more water, a procedure known as “feed and bleed.”

To complicate the situation somewhat, remember that the boiling point of a material is a function of both temperature & pressure. When you lower the pressure, you lower the boiling point. So if they bleed off too much steam too quickly, they create a situation where the boiling point of the water drops & a big chunk of water suddenly flash vaporizes, increasing the pressure & exposing more of the core. Apparently it's a tricky process.
posted by scalefree at 8:34 PM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

Cold water in hot water out. I understand that some particles would be flushed but it seems like you either have the choice of venting steam or flushing into the ocean.

From what I understand, they're just venting the steam straight up into the atmosphere at this point.
posted by empath at 8:34 PM on March 13, 2011

video of Unit #3 exploding.
posted by Mach5 at 8:36 PM on March 13, 2011

I'm not sure, but I think his question was basically, "why can't you never stop pumping water in, and let water or steam out at a constant rate?"

I think I gave the answer to that. You'll drop the boiling point too low, the water will flash vaporize & expose more of the core.
posted by scalefree at 8:43 PM on March 13, 2011

It's not as easy as it sounds. I'm sure that someone at the site has a handheld with this programmed in it.
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/steam_tables.htm
posted by Jumpin Jack Flash at 8:54 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure, but I think his question was basically, "why can't you never stop pumping water in, and let water or steam out at a constant rate?"

BWRs are kept at very close to atmospheric pressure. I would be surprised to hear that there's a risk of "flashing" if the pressure changes slightly. Scalefree, can you cite that?

A better answer would be - if you stop adding water, the still-hot reactor will keep turning the water you've left to steam. That will lower the water level in the reactor until it eventually uncovers the fuel, which would then melt (more) and cause all kinds of grief. If you don't vent (or condense) that steam, the pressure inside the reactor will rise to the point where the vessel will rupture which will also cause all kinds of grief.
posted by Popular Ethics at 8:55 PM on March 13, 2011

From what I understand, this seawater kill is very bad. Seawater at temperatures that might exist in the pipes and as well (and especially) in the containment is a bad thing. Seawater is corrosive at best. When you have to use it as a coolant you are looking at long term destruction of high pressure pipes. In the short term, it's a new way to create hydrogen and oxygen because the water is very reactive. Core temps are usually in the thousands of degrees.

You will get hydrogen and oxygen there. They will combine in an explosion.

I would expect more explosions if the core temp is not kept below 1000 F.

Otherwise, this may be a classic meltdown. We don't want to see that. Although theorists might want to see it. Just to find out what really goes on.

At this point Japan wants to get in touch with the people who are still spelunking in the Chernobyl site. The more you know and all that.
posted by Splunge at 8:56 PM on March 13, 2011

I guess that makes sense. I was just curious as to the reasoning behind the current saltwater influx then boil off period that seems to be generating a lot of flammable hydrogen. The various hydrogen explosions seem like they've got potential to damage the reactor vessel or at least any way of controlling or monitoring what's going on in the vessel.
posted by vuron at 8:56 PM on March 13, 2011

Last I heard the core was 20 percent uncovered and the rods were burning. That would mean Cesium isotope gas in the air.
posted by Splunge at 9:01 PM on March 13, 2011

dialetheia: Did anybody catch the TEPCO news conference they just showed on NHK World? I couldn't tell if he was saying that the water level is 1800 mm above or below the height of the fuel rods. I think the translator said "negative 1800 mm" but I didn't quite catch it.

I didn't catch that either, but the latest update from World Nuclear News has this fwiw:

"Seawater was being injected into the reactor vessel and levels had initially risen as expected. However, a gauge indicated that the rise had tailed off, despite ongoing seawater injection.

The gauge in question indicated that water levels are around two metres below the top of the nuclear fuel assemblies, which would represent a very serious situation with the risk of fuel damage. However, the Nuclear and Indsutrial Safety Agency was satisfied that pressure within containment was at comfortable levels, while radiation had been decreasing."

posted by Popular Ethics at 9:01 PM on March 13, 2011

I wouldn't expect any more hydrogen explosions after the roof has been blown off. It's very light and escapes straight upwards. I imagine they could have regular flare ups as it escapes, but I don't think they would do that much damage.
posted by empath at 9:03 PM on March 13, 2011

Were those explosions from the core containment? I hadn't heard that.
posted by Splunge at 9:04 PM on March 13, 2011

No. They're from the secondary containment.
posted by empath at 9:06 PM on March 13, 2011

I thought the explosions were from the secondary cooling area. I'd hate to think that the core blew up.
posted by Splunge at 9:07 PM on March 13, 2011

How would they totally kill the core? Depending upon the temp I don't think boron is the way to go anymore.
posted by Splunge at 9:10 PM on March 13, 2011

Splunge: Core temps are usually in the thousands of degrees.

I should hope not! That's well above the temperature where cladding melting should start. If the water level is steady, the core temperature should be no more than a few hundred degrees. If the water level is (still) too low to cover the fuel, then yes the temperature will rise to a point (> 1000 deg C) where the zirc-steam reaction will take place and generate hydrogen, but that's true whether it's seawater or any other kind of water.

Seawater injection will however corrode the crap out of the reactor, and it will probably not be used again.
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:11 PM on March 13, 2011

I'm no engineer, nor scientist, so this is probably a stupid question, but:

Why don't they design these things such that, in normal operating conditions, two separate sub-critical masses are constantly being pushed together into a critical mass, by a force which only is present when electricity is flowing, and which overcomes another force that is constantly trying to pull them apart, but which is doing it regardless of whether electricity is flowing or not?

For example, force from an electrical engine that's powering an arm that's pushing the two together, overcoming force from springs that are pulling the two apart.

Cut the power and the engine stops, at which point the springs quickly pull the subcritical masses apart.

Plus have it so that if they melt, they melt into separate areas.

I mean, I'm certainly not saying that exactly that would work, but surely there's got to be some way to make criticality dependent upon uninterrupted electrical flow? In particular, upon the functioning of the coolant pumps?

Or do they already do something like this, and the problem is not that they're unable to cool the critical mass, but that the subcritical masses remain hot enough long enough that they're a problem even though they're subcritical?
posted by Flunkie at 9:15 PM on March 13, 2011

How would they totally kill the core? Depending upon the temp I don't think boron is the way to go anymore.

Splunge what are you on about? As far as anyone knows, the reactor is shut down. I have not heard of any problem with Boron injection in the seawater, nor the need for any further measures to maintain the reactor in its shut-down state.
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:15 PM on March 13, 2011

Sorry. Still thinking in Fahrenheit. But still bad. And yeah, seawater has to be the worst thing. OTOh what else do you do?
posted by Splunge at 9:15 PM on March 13, 2011

Popular Ethics: The problems is still there. They are worried about the fact that the core is still live. What is your problem?
posted by Splunge at 9:18 PM on March 13, 2011

Flunkie: Or do they already do something like this, andthe problem is not that they're unable to cool the critical mass, but that the subcritical masses remain hot enough long enough that they're a problem even though they're subcritical?

Yes, that. Nothing to do with criticality (presently).
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:18 PM on March 13, 2011

OK, thanks Popular Ethics.
posted by Flunkie at 9:19 PM on March 13, 2011

Core temps are probably close to 1000F in order to generate steam at 1000PSI and 550F.
posted by Jumpin Jack Flash at 9:19 PM on March 13, 2011

Splunge: That's troubling news that I haven't heard anywhere else. Where did you hear it?
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:19 PM on March 13, 2011

Why don't they design these things such that, in normal operating conditions, two separate sub-critical masses are constantly being pushed together into a critical mass...?

In the current circumstance, the reactors are subcritical -- they've been shut down. The problem is that they're still very hot and it will take a lot of effort to cool them down enough.

Also, newer designs for reactors are considerably better, in that they would be able to passively cool themselves down after shutdown. Fukushima I's reactor 1 is an older design that needs active cooling (which has mostly failed, hence their use of seawater).
posted by chimaera at 9:21 PM on March 13, 2011

Core temps are probably close to 1000F in order to generate steam at 1000PSI and 550F.

Ah, I was thinking in C. Still, I assume they are keeping the reactor at a much lower pressure than 10000 psi right now, so the core temperature should be even lower (unless it's still uncovered).
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:21 PM on March 13, 2011

Or do they already do something like this, and the problem is not that they're unable to cool the critical mass, but that the subcritical masses remain hot enough long enough that they're a problem even though they're subcritical?

As I understand it, this is what the control rods are for. Something goes wrong, and you insert them all, "shutting down" the reactor. The problem is that the fuel is still warmish (some small percentage of the original heat) which would be fine, if they could keep water flowing and cooling it down. But they can't, so water begins to boil away, and exposing the fuel, at which point the fuel begins to get hot and melt itself, boiling more water, raising the pressure, making it harder to inject water in. So they vent, inject, vent, and hope that in the process they'll keep the fuel covered in water and cooling.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:22 PM on March 13, 2011

Popular Ethics- Where do you think the fuel rods are? They are still there and they have to still be cooled. Even after the reactor is shut down, the core produces heat. The last I heard it was still producing the heat that it was supposed to for power. What are you asking me?
posted by Splunge at 9:24 PM on March 13, 2011

Flunkie there are many reactor designs. The concept you are talking about is passive safety, which is a feature of newer reactor designs. 50 years ago when they were designing this model that wasn't in the specs. In hindsight this was a pretty bad design flaw, but so far not as bad as the Chernobyl design flaw. Fortunately for us there are many safety systems still intact which should preven this from being a Chernobyl scale catastrophe. In fact if one were to compare the lasting health affects of this nuclear incident with the Deep Water Horizon catastrophe last year this is pretty minor and short lived.
posted by humanfont at 9:27 PM on March 13, 2011

Cringely again, Chernobyl comparison.
posted by mwhybark at 9:27 PM on March 13, 2011

Even after the reactor is shut down, the core produces heat. The last I heard it was still producing the heat that it was supposed to for power

My understanding is that that is not the case.

It's no longer producing heat -- but it does have a tremendous amount of residual heat in the system after the shutdown which needs to be taken away somehow.
posted by chimaera at 9:28 PM on March 13, 2011

Basic thermodynamics... they have to remove the heat(energy) before they can reduce the pressure to a lower temperature level.
posted by Jumpin Jack Flash at 9:28 PM on March 13, 2011

Splunge - here's the explanation from physicist Ken Bergeron in the Scientific American article linked above:

"Based on what we understand, the reactor has been shut down, in the sense that all of the control rods have been inserted. Which means there's no longer a nuclear reaction. But what you have to worry about is the decay heat that's still in the core, that will last for many days.

"And to keep that decay heat of the uranium from melting the core, you have to keep water on it. And the conventional sources of water, the electricity that provides the power for pumps, have failed. So they are using some very unusual methods of getting water into the core, they're using steam-driven turbines—they're operating off of the steam generated by the reactor itself.

"But even that system requires electricity in the form of batteries. And the batteries aren't designed to last this long, so they have failed by now. So we don't know exactly how they're getting water to the core, or if they're getting enough water to the core. We believe, because of the release of cesium, that the core has been exposed above the water level, at least for a portion of time, and has overheated. What we really need to know is how long can they keep that water flowing. And it needs to be days to keep the core from melting.

"The containment, I believe, is still intact. But if the core does melt, that insult will probably not be sustained, and the containment vessel will fail. All this, if it were to occur, would take a matter of days. What's crucial is restoring AC power. They've got to get AC power back to the plant to be able to control it. And I'm sure they're working on it."

posted by LobsterMitten at 9:29 PM on March 13, 2011

My understanding is that a scrammed (control rods inserted) reactor produces about 3% decay heat compared to an operating temp of around 250 degrees C-- am I correct on that as far as a GE BWR-3 goes?

(I read the MIT guy's letter over dinner.)
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 9:30 PM on March 13, 2011

On a completely different note, I'm hoping that someone reports the status of the spent fuel pools which were under the now-exploded roofs. The fuel in this pool has to be kept cool too, although their heat output is much lower - it would take many days to warm up and boil off. A more pressing concern is whether debris from the explosion might damage the pool and cause the water level to drop, or relocate the fuel inside and cause a criticality incident. Here is a study of the risk.

/not fearmongering, just wondering.
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:31 PM on March 13, 2011

Splunge, I've been following this thread closely and, from what I've seen, unless you have information outside of what's been mentioned here you are mistaken on several points.

The fuel rods are where they've been since moments after the ground started shaking. The control rods have all inserted properly across the board (correct me if I'm wrong anyone, but this is what I've heard/seen).

The fuel rods are still producing some heat according to a decay profile but not anywhere near the what you mention when you say "The last I heard it was still producing the heat that it was supposed to for power". That kind of heat would have long ago melted things into a puddle in the bottom of the containment pool.

I say again, the reactor is shut down, but it's NOT like a car with an ignition key and hot engine block that slowly cools off. It's more like a plane where you kill the engine and begin a slow glide pattern to the ground/runway, hoping you don't hit a downdraft you haven't anticipated and slam into the deck.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:32 PM on March 13, 2011 [3 favorites]

And to keep that decay heat of the uranium from melting the core, you have to keep water on it.

Why do they care about whether the core melts or not?

I mean, I (think I) understand that if it's allowed to pool together, in a place or manner such that the control rods aren't helping, then it could achieve critical mass. But surely even merely a well-designed floor could prevent a critical-sized pool - some melts over here, some melts over there, into separate subcritical pools.

Is there some other reason why it's important that the uranium be kept from melting? Other than to prevent criticality?
posted by Flunkie at 9:34 PM on March 13, 2011

Splunge: I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I am making a distinction between "being live", as you said, and giving off residual decay heat. The reactor is not critical. It is not "live" in that sense. The control rods are doing their job, and no one is worried about a runaway reaction (presently). The core is still hot however (and will be for days), and thus requires water injection to keep the fuel covered in (boiling) water. These are two very different accident scenarios.

On preview - Lobster Mitten has it.
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:36 PM on March 13, 2011

RolandOfElf: Please don't be so patronizing. I understand what you're saying and the car thing is a load of bullshit. The last report that I heard/saw was that the fuel rods were out of the coolant. The rest of your reply is garbage.
posted by Splunge at 9:36 PM on March 13, 2011

fairytaile, I think you're right. The things I've heard on NHK refer to 'hot' as being 100°C when they would like it to be 30°C (normal temp). Lowish pressure, boiling in contained space and venting steam. It's still boiling, there's a bit of off and on as to how high they can keep the water level vs pressure vs releasing steam vs rod damage. It's carryover and secondary product decay heat, active fission stopped when the reactor was scrammed.
posted by zengargoyle at 9:37 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Is there some other reason why it's important that the uranium be kept from melting? Other than to prevent criticality?

cleanup and breach of containment as I understand it.
posted by nomisxid at 9:38 PM on March 13, 2011

I assume that a melted mass becomes much harder to effectively dispose off Flunkie. Not impossible, they seem to have been able to dispose the partially melted core at TMI, but still it seems like the more intact the fuel rods are the better.
posted by vuron at 9:38 PM on March 13, 2011

Flunkie - my (limited - gathered from reading the various comments to date) understanding is that the more damage to the fuel rods, the greater the risk of heavier radio-isotopes that are more dangerous if/when released.
posted by birdsquared at 9:38 PM on March 13, 2011

So how long WILL it take for it to cool enough for us to say the crisis is over?
posted by empath at 9:38 PM on March 13, 2011

Is there some other reason why it's important that the uranium be kept from melting? Other than to prevent criticality?

Well that, and a bunch of other reasons. The melting fuel will release hydrogen, potentially causing more explosions, maybe even inside containment. Melted fuel could melt through containment. And a melted configuration is much harder to cool (less surface area), so it would be harder to stop once started.
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:40 PM on March 13, 2011

BWRs are kept at very close to atmospheric pressure. I would be surprised to hear that there's a risk of "flashing" if the pressure changes slightly. Scalefree, can you cite that?

I have no idea where I picked up that tidbit, it was sometime today. It was part of an explanation from a source that seemed credible at the time, I filed it away in my head but didn't note where it came from. Chalk it up to information overload.
posted by scalefree at 9:42 PM on March 13, 2011

So how long WILL it take for it to cool enough for us to say the crisis is over?
The NYT article linked above suggests potentially weeks or months.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:44 PM on March 13, 2011

You wan't to keep the uranium from melting because it's like dog doo in a plastic bag. Walk your dog, pick up the poo. It's nasty when it's in the bag, but at least when you put it down you don't end up with dog poo all over your hands. Same thing. Uranium is nasty stuff, but as long as it's in it's container shell (some sort of ceramic I think), you can move it around and be exposed and all that, but when you put it down and walk away you don't have Uranium all over you. If it melts, it won't blow up, but you'll have a big pile of poo that's hard to clean up.
posted by zengargoyle at 9:47 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

If one of the key problems is having enough AC/DC power to power the cooling units, couldn't a large enough ship anchored offshore be tasked to provide that power? I mean presumably the US has one or more Aircraft carriers en route and couldn't you in theory use the ship's reactor as a portable generator?
posted by vuron at 9:48 PM on March 13, 2011

Sorry if I came across as patronizing, I'm just trying to explain something that's obviously not sinking in with you.

Let me rephrase, regarding the fuel rods, yes at times they've had varying portions of their length exposed but that's pretty far down the list on things that affect heat production in the core. Don't get me wrong, the coolant is VITAL to heat transfer in the reactor but the control rods are what's important when we talk about new heat being produced (as you were stating was happening).

Heat is being produced but when you say "[Japan authorities] are worried about the fact that the core is still live" and "The last I heard it was still producing the heat that it was supposed to for power" it gives us the impression that you know what you're saying and that you perhaps have some information we don't, because we haven't heard that the reactors in question were producing anywhere near production levels of heat. Quite the opposite actually, we heard they were successfully scrammed but having problems with cooling them post-shutdown.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:49 PM on March 13, 2011 [2 favorites]

zengargoyle: did you make up that analogy by yourself, because I think it's awesome and really pretty accurate... especially since this whole situation stinks.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:50 PM on March 13, 2011

scalefree I have no idea where I picked up that tidbit, it was sometime today. It was part of an explanation from a source that seemed credible at the time, I filed it away in my head but didn't note where it came from. Chalk it up to information overload.

No I'm wrong. Crap, I should know better (again, BWRs aren't my specialty). The normal operating pressure is 1000 psi. But I would be surprised if they were keeping the vessel at that high a pressure right now.
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:50 PM on March 13, 2011

We should therefore get rid of all dogs.
posted by zengargoyle at 9:52 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's no longer producing heat -- but it does have a tremendous amount of residual heat in the system after the shutdown which needs to be taken away somehow.

It's more than just residual heat, the normal fission reactions in the core result in some radioactive byproducts with half lives in hours and days, these products are now decaying which releases heat.
posted by atrazine at 9:52 PM on March 13, 2011 [5 favorites]

Thanks for the clarification atrazine.
posted by chimaera at 9:53 PM on March 13, 2011

The NYT article linked above suggests potentially weeks or months.

The hope is that as time goes by, they will be able to bring more and better equipment to the site to deal with the continuing issues. With more potential for quakes and tsunami, I don't think parking a floating reactor near to shore would be ideal. We can airlift in diesel generators and fuel; I believe this process is already under way.
posted by nomisxid at 9:54 PM on March 13, 2011

Recap of several useful explanatory links that were posted above:

Why I am not worried about Japan's nuclear reactors by Josef Oehmen, an MIT scientist (though not specifically a nuclear physicist). Caveat: he mentions a "core catcher" as part of the anatomy of a nuclear plant, but arclight (linked above) said something about core catchers being absent in designs of the age that these plants are.

Ken Bergeron quoted at Scientific American

Explanations from arclight, collected above as a comment in this thread

Automatic Earth on "was this a black swan?" ie was it unpredictable

Washington Post on the timeline of the reactor problems

New York Times interactive thing on the reactor
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:00 PM on March 13, 2011 [9 favorites]

Might be helpful:
Reuters: Timeline of Japan's unfolding nuclear crisis

@somewhere in the mess up above: Only 3 meltdowns historically? There are more in the generally known history.
posted by Twang at 10:03 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Pressure: 360 kilo pascals = 3.55 atmospheres = 52.2 psi, didn't catch which reactor.
posted by zengargoyle at 10:05 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

In the collected comment from arclight (above in this thread, also I just linked it) he says that the nuclear fuel was exposed to air, out of water, for some length of time (before they started pumping in seawater) and thus was damaged to some degree - and that we can tell that from the cesium they've detected in the released materials. Maybe that's what Splunge was thinking of above.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:08 PM on March 13, 2011

So, I don't understand the technical details very well, but I read that the most recent explosion caused a huge plume of smoke to shoot up in the sky. Is that something people on the West coast of the U.S. should be worried about? Or would it be the type of noble gas radioactive material someone upthread said only is dangerous for ten minutes or so?
posted by overglow at 10:11 PM on March 13, 2011

Why weren't replacement batteries and generators flown in right away to avoid losing power?

Wouldn't the U.S. or any of a dozen other nations been willing and able to do this?

As soon as the generators were lost due to flooding and they had to switch to batteries, couldn't they have sent out a call to the world, like "Hey guys, these batteries will only last us x hours and then we're going to need some working generators and some backup batteries? Somebody help us out please?"
posted by marsha56 at 10:12 PM on March 13, 2011

he says that the nuclear fuel was exposed to air, out of water, for some length of time (before they started pumping in seawater) and thus was damaged to some degree

As I understand it, the fuel still is exposed to the air despite their efforts with the seawater - I thought NHK World was just reporting that the water level is 1.8 meters below the top of the fuel rods in reactor 3.
posted by dialetheia at 10:15 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

West Coast USA shouldn't be worried about anything yet, nor should the aforementioned friend of a friend in Colorado buying Geiger counters *facepalm*. I say this because we have heard over and over that containment is still intact. If this changes and then we get some sort of continuous conflagration/explosion then you might have reason to be worried, but a meteorologist could tell you more accurately than a physicist what to expect regarding air currents, etc.

I say this based upon information that's been released by the authorities/reliable sources. If you have an inherent doubt/mistrust of that information then I guess all bets are off when it comes to discussing things, but that's neither here nor there.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:16 PM on March 13, 2011

Twang: @somewhere in the mess up above: Only 3 meltdowns historically? There are more in the generally known history.

That was me. And I said only the third meltdown in history at an *electricity producing* reactor. There have been other meltdowns sure (surprisingly few, considering the energies involved), but accidents at power reactors have the potential for far more serious consequences because they're big.
posted by Popular Ethics at 10:18 PM on March 13, 2011

Is that something people on the West coast of the U.S. should be worried about? Or would it be the type of noble gas radioactive material someone upthread said only is dangerous for ten minutes or so?

I get the general idea that what comes out of any given H2 explosion at the plant needs to be analyzed by detectors before we know what, exactly, is in it. If there's radioactive iodine and cesium in it, it's indicative of fuel rod damage. There are detectors at the plants and in other locations-- including Hawaii.

The Pacific Fleet does a lot of reactor work; the Navy is monitoring the situation extensively (the NYT had an article about that earlier today). Anything that's heading for the West Coast will trip detectors in Hawaii first, and take about two days to get from Japan to the West Coast anyhow, depending on conditions.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 10:18 PM on March 13, 2011

As I understand it for right now, overglow, there is virtually zero risk to the US west coast from the reactor problems.

For one thing, the stuff going into the atmosphere so far is not "that bad" (someone else will be better at quantifying that than I am). And, even if something went into the atmosphere there, simulations posted by Cliff Mass, a University of Washington meteorologist above show it would take 9 days to cross the Pacific, and it would be diluted to virtually nothing by the time it came.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:19 PM on March 13, 2011

yup, cesium shows up when the zirconium cladding gives way. So if you detect cesium, the fuel assembly has been physically damaged.

The overpressure they were worried about was on the order of 120 - 150 psi. That's too much for most water pumps to overcome.

I had thought previously that it was possible to circulate water in the pressure vessel, but based on the NYT article I quoted way upthread, it appears that water can be injected, but the only exhaust is via steam.

As long as the pressure vessel is intact, the stuff stays inside. The explosion was in the fuel loading bay, which has thin walls designed to blow off in case of an explosion. The most recent reports I've seen say the pressure containment is still intact.

One thing to remember, there is a huge difference between detectable and and dangerous levels of radiation. The sensitivity of some types of detectors (scintillation counters, for instance) is mind blowing.
posted by warbaby at 10:20 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Why weren't replacement batteries and generators flown in right away to avoid losing power?

This is something I am curious about as well. It could be that the facility was too damaged to approach, bu I suspect a lack of intact infrastructure between nearest heavy cargo ready airfield and the site (I suspect the kind of power they need can't be flown in on your average helicopter).
posted by nomisxid at 10:24 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

From what I understand nobody who doesn't live in the immediately area needs to worry about anything unless you hear that the containment was breached.
posted by empath at 10:25 PM on March 13, 2011

overglow: Also, one of the articles, can't remember which, said that a reason the Chernobyl situation was so bad was that the reactor included graphite which caught fire, and that fire released fly ash which flew very high in the atmosphere, and the radioactive material hitched a ride on the fly ash and thus was transported long distances. But that these reactors don't have the graphite which was the basis for that fire and that method of transporting the radioactive stuff at Chernobyl. So don't think of Chernobyl (wide spread of materials) as a model for how this event will unfold, was the upshot.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:27 PM on March 13, 2011

Overglow, this NY Times article describes the Pentagon's contingency plans for monitoring radiation danger to the Western US. They are keeping an eye on the situation, but it doesn't sound like there's any reason whatsoever for concern.

Although the article does note that US helicopters flying 60 miles north of the reactors were found to be "coated in particulate radiation," which seems a touch worrying.
posted by dialetheia at 10:28 PM on March 13, 2011

Anyone happen to have data on the battery backups they used at this site? I've seen/worked with the tractor-trailer size generator trucks before but can't begin to imagine what sort of battery bank this place must have had to power their cooling systems for 8 hours before running down. That sounds like a massive amount of storage capacity.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:31 PM on March 13, 2011

Dr. Mass, by the way, is seriously brilliant. My brother worked for him for years.
posted by KathrynT at 10:32 PM on March 13, 2011

Thanks for all the answers! I feel less scared now, although still concerned of course. I really hope that things cool down quickly, so everyone, especially the people nearby in Japan, can rest easy.
posted by overglow at 10:33 PM on March 13, 2011

I can't cite a source for this, but I've read that the battery backups were not used to power the cooling systems, but were intended just to keep control systems and measurement equipment going. As far as I know, the generators were the backup system for the primary active cooling systems and there was never any thought that the batteries could replace them.
posted by zachlipton at 10:36 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Why weren't replacement batteries and generators flown in right away to avoid losing power?

Because locating large, complex pieces of industrial-scale equipment that are ready for immediate use isn't quick or easy, because transporting large, complex pieces of industrial equipment several thousand kilometers isn't quick or easy, and because transporting large, complex pieces of industrial equipment the last relative few kilometers through or over a complete disaster area to a devastated site isn't quick or easy?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:38 PM on March 13, 2011 [5 favorites]

Adding to my linkdump of useful links, here is eriko's comment from this thread where he explains why this will not be like Chernobyl, among other useful tidbits.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:51 PM on March 13, 2011

@Popular Ethics:

This is only the third time in history that a power producing reactor has suffered a (partial) meltdown.

I guess you're counting TMI and Fermi, and not counting SL-1 (3MW). In the United States alone.
posted by Twang at 10:53 PM on March 13, 2011

Perhaps he means commercial/civilian power producing, not 'net positive energy producing experimental or otherwise'.
posted by nomisxid at 11:04 PM on March 13, 2011

Perhaps he means commercial/civilian power producing, not 'net positive energy producing experimental or otherwise'.

Yep. I'm counting TMI, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima. Big, electricity producing reactors. This is somewhat arbitrary, but prototypes, research and military reactors are (were) not held to the same safety standards as commercial plants. Mostly I wanted to say that this is a rare occurance, so I'm paying close attention.
posted by Popular Ethics at 11:22 PM on March 13, 2011

From the automatic earth blog linked above, this is interesting to me:

Company documents show that Tokyo Electric tested the Fukushima plant to withstand a maximum seismic jolt lower than Friday's 8.9 earthquake. Tepco's last safety test of nuclear power plant Number 1—one that is currently in danger of meltdown—was done at a seismic magnitude the company considered the highest possible, but in fact turned out to be lower than Friday's quake. The information comes from the company's "Fukushima No. 1 and No. 2 Updated Safety Measures" documents written in Japanese in 2010 and 2009.

The documents were reviewed by Dow Jones. The company said in the documents that 7.9 was the highest magnitude for which they tested the safety for their No. 1 and No. 2 nuclear power plants in Fukushima. Simultaneous seismic activity along the three tectonic plates in the sea east of the plants—the epicenter of Friday's quake—wouldn't surpass 7.9, according to the company's presentation. The company based its models partly on previous seismic activity in the area, including a 7.0 earthquake in May 1938 and two simultaneous earthquakes of 7.3 and 7.5 on November 5 of the same year.

If this is correct, then it is very surprising. First, megathrust earthquakes on a section of fault can occur with a rough periodicity, but may be separated by centuries. Going back to the 1930s is not enough of a temporal unit of analysis to determine what constitutes a maximum size earthquake. And, if they were working on some kind of seismic model that suggested that there was a maximum size earthquake, well, they were wrong in both principle and in retrospect. It is fair to say that geologists are better at describing seismicity than predicting it.

For example, megathrust earthquakes in the Cascadia zone off British Columbia and Washington may happen about once every 500 years, with the most recent being in January 1700. If a nuclear power plant has a lifespan of 50 years then there is a 10% chance of such a quake in the life of that reactor, and it would be reasonable to anticipate that quake, not the quakes known from a lesser time interval, or the maximum quake predicted by a (necessarily untested) seismic model.
posted by Rumple at 11:23 PM on March 13, 2011

Sorry, automatic earth blog.
posted by Rumple at 11:24 PM on March 13, 2011

"I'm watching the local Fox nightly news on the other tuner, usually they are the most hyperbolic of our newsteams, and even they are going with the U.W. guy who first showed the pollution from China was coming over to the U.S. in the jetstream, saying minimal risk."

You mean Cliff Mass, right?
posted by mwhybark at 11:26 PM on March 13, 2011

well then!
posted by mwhybark at 11:37 PM on March 13, 2011

Yuck.
posted by polyhedron at 11:39 PM on March 13, 2011

That automatic earth link has some very interesting stuff. Thanks for the link, Rumple. One interesting note: "Above 1500 K, the power from oxidation exceeds that from decay heat (4,5) unless the oxidation rate is limited by the supply of either zircaloy or steam."
posted by chemoboy at 11:40 PM on March 13, 2011

About "why didn't they get new generators or batteries?" - a question I have also been wondering about - the letter from the MIT guy says:

"When the diesel generators were gone, the reactor operators switched to emergency battery power. The batteries were designed as one of the backups to the backups, to provide power for cooling the core for 8 hours. And they did.

Within the 8 hours, another power source had to be found and connected to the power plant. The power grid was down due to the earthquake. The diesel generators were destroyed by the tsunami. So mobile diesel generators were trucked in.

This is where things started to go seriously wrong. The external power generators could not be connected to the power plant (the plugs did not fit). So after the batteries ran out, the residual heat could not be carried away any more."

He doesn't say where he got that info about the plugs not fitting, but that's a hell of a thing if true.
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:43 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeah, not like you can just hop down to Radio Shack for an adapter in that case.

I need a refresher. The #2 reactor is the last one which was running at the time of the quake/tsunami, yes? I'm just wondering how many times we might expect this process. How long to the cooling systems need to be maintained before we can put this dog down?
posted by calamari kid at 11:50 PM on March 13, 2011

All I can see for that Jiji report on #2 are RTs of what appears to be a Reuters relay, anybody got a direct source?
posted by mwhybark at 11:50 PM on March 13, 2011

Here's the Reuters sourcing.
posted by mwhybark at 11:51 PM on March 13, 2011

Working on sourcing it now; Jiji claims a report from TEPCO, and TEPCO's site gets slammed whenever this happens.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 11:55 PM on March 13, 2011

Best source of good solid scientific analysis written about this MESS in terms easily understood by legitimate experts:
http://allthingsnuclear.org/
posted by dougiedd at 11:57 PM on March 13, 2011 [1 favorite]

NKK version (Japanese). #2 at 1:25, cooling going wonky, pressure up, considering venting for safety.
posted by zengargoyle at 11:59 PM on March 13, 2011

I think its being called the [something] quake, where [something] is the geographic region or plate, but honestly, I have not yet made detailed note.
posted by mwhybark at 11:59 PM on March 13, 2011

NHK report citing NISA report. I don't see anything on the English NISA site, or the Japanese or English TEPCO sites, yet.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 12:01 AM on March 14, 2011

floam: that's exactly what I've been going through. I was doing the information overload thing on Libya for a while, then Wisconsin, and now this. Apparently there was a time when I wasn't staring at liveblogs and following twitter feeds.

NHK World reporting on Daiichi No. 2 reactor now. They just said that the reactor has "lost all its coolant." That seems rather extreme, but I don't know.
posted by zachlipton at 12:02 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Just on NHK World TV propper. #2 lost all coolant, considering venting as pressure is up. I think this one was still mostly cooling by the regular backup means. Sounds like it was being cooled by the circulating water backup system (which has now lost coolant). Not sure, haven't been paying attention to state of #2.
posted by zengargoyle at 12:04 AM on March 14, 2011

right, well, I'm off to bed anyway. thanks all and especially thanks for being civil in here this evening. See you tomorrow.
posted by mwhybark at 12:08 AM on March 14, 2011

Plugs not fitting sounds a little bogus, doesn't it? I mean, I recognize this is not normal household current, but at the end of the day plugs are just a convenient way to connect two bundles of wire to each other. Surely there would have been an electrician on-hand to rewire the generator to work. Better than a meltdown, surely?

It would be less surprising and more of a "yeah I guess they're screwed" if the new generators weren't equipped to put out the right kind of power (ie, phase, hertz, whatever). That's not something you can easily work around, I don't think.

Then again, I'm a bit shocked that the plant's "please plug in emergency power here" panel or whatever it is doesn't contain one of every likely plug and various transformers to handle/convert the incoming juice. Compared to losing a plant that's a hugely minor detail, isn't it?

I think nuclear power is safe and people panic about it like children panic about the bogeymonster. But this is the kind of oversight, if true, that needs addressing.
posted by maxwelton at 12:16 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

(Well engineered nuclear power, not garbage designs like Chernobyl, obviously.)
posted by maxwelton at 12:18 AM on March 14, 2011

floam: Certainly, part of it is the disaster porn aspect, but I think part of the reason is the absolutely pathetic way most US media organizations have been covering these stories lately. Reading Al Jazeera English and the Guardian's liveblogs from Libya is such a completely different experience from even reading the New York Times stories. In Wisconsin, later reports that focused on the political situation don't come close to capturing the sense of frustration and passion when thousands crashed the capitol doors Wednesday night that you got from watching the ustream footage and following the tweets. Here, every western media organization has consistently been 8-12 hours behind this thread and many have been putting on their meteorologist to explain the workings of a nuclear reactor. I don't need to know all this stuff up to the minute, but I do want to know, and obsessively following threads like this one seems to be the way to do it besides waiting for the book to come out.

As for the plugs not fitting issue, my guess is that is some sort of convenient way to say "electrically incompatible." If it was just an issue of shorting some wires together, I'm sure they could have found someone to wire up a new plug.
posted by zachlipton at 12:24 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Also, @arclight is speculating that the NHK report on Daiichi #2 meant to say that they lost all power to coolant pumps, not that they lost all coolant. A translation mistake perhaps? Anyone have a Tepco or NISA update that clarifies this?
posted by zachlipton at 12:27 AM on March 14, 2011

That does sound plausible. Japan has both 50hz and 60hz power.
posted by polyhedron at 12:28 AM on March 14, 2011

zachlipton, I was just going to say the same. Some loss of translation going on. "loss of coolant" is more like "loss of cooling equipment functionality due to power". That was confusing me in my amateurish translation of the Japanese source.
posted by zengargoyle at 12:30 AM on March 14, 2011

fact is, none of the reports are likely to be any-wears close to the truth of the matter given the history of the Japanese nuclear power industries penchant for dishonesty: plugs? who even knows if the real problem is missing power: perhaps the coolant systems are too badly damaged to be operable even with power. one can speculate about all of this, based on the think information that is getting released by those with a record of terrible deception
posted by dougiedd at 12:31 AM on March 14, 2011

"I think nuclear power is safe and people panic about it like children panic about the bogeymonster."

I think nuclear power can be made safe. But I also believe greedy corporations and human error can screw up just about anything.

Said another way, no matter how safe nuclear power plants are, someone in the chain will find a way to not head off catastrophe. And much like the gulf oil spill and the bank collapse, it's the ability to avoid due diligence to an amazing degree that causes these disasters.

Looking at the before and after pictures of the front of the plant, it's a little shocking to see so many pipes, tanks, and I assume pumps out in front on the tsunami side. It was all washed away. I have no idea what that stuff was, or whether it was related to the cooling failure, but...... well it's frikin washed away. Someone had to make some seriously bad decisions that led to that. The whole coast is lined with automated tsunami warning systems. They knew it was coming.

My point is, you need to put an asterisk next to "safe" for these things.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:38 AM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

According to this AP story, they're getting ready to inject seawater into Unit 2 now. Sounds like they lost "cooling capacity," not the coolant itself (just like arclight said).
posted by dialetheia at 12:44 AM on March 14, 2011

maxwelton writes "Plugs not fitting sounds a little bogus, doesn't it? I mean, I recognize this is not normal household current, but at the end of the day plugs are just a convenient way to connect two bundles of wire to each other. Surely there would have been an electrician on-hand to rewire the generator to work. Better than a meltdown, surely?"

I sure sure would like to see numbers on the power requirements of the emergancy system. Much more than a couple hundred amps at a few hundred volts and you really can't jury rig things. Proper procedures need to be followed to prevent things like inductive heating.

I'd think they would have all this stuff on hand but it would be pretty easy to be missing one critical component.
posted by Mitheral at 12:46 AM on March 14, 2011

I remember hearing last night via NHK that Eastern Japan would suffer rolling blackouts (as soon as TEPCO regroups its poop, it seems) because of the 50/60Hz discrepancy-- Western Japan's power systems just can't be put to use to help out.

How did that happen? It seems like a strange decision, like equipping half your soldiers with flintlocks and half with AK-47s.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 1:08 AM on March 14, 2011

Since I hadn't checked on allthingsnuclear.org since Friday or Saturday morning maybe, when dougiedd suggested it I went to take a look. I'm tired and more than a little punchy, having been sole operator of World Watch One here at Fortress Obi-Wan since early Thursday morning, so I'm hoping for some fresher minds to help me sort through this UCS FUD.

Their article Sunday Update on Fukushima Reactors contains the alarming statement that The Mark I is unusually vulnerable to containment failure in the event of a core-melt accident. A recent study by Sandia National Laboratories shows that the likelihood of containment failure in this case is nearly 42% (see Table 4-7 on page 97).

I'm looking at the referenced Sandia National Laboratory study Risk-Informed Assessment of Degraded Containment Vessels [PDF]. There on p. 96 I read, A very important feature of these results is that there is a very high probability of a melt-through failure. The probability of an early melt-through failure given core damage is roughly 36% for all cases.

My questions are 1) can anyone provide a specific, technical definition of "early melt-through" as opposed to melt-through in general and 2) in the context of discussing probability, what would the meaning of the following table be, most importantly the headings?

Case                       |  Mean  |    5%     |  50%   |  95%   |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Un-damaged (Reference)     | 0.4169 | 2.393E-06 | 0.3861 | 0.8851 |
Un-damaged (Current Study) | 0.4177 | 2.393E-06 | 0.3861 | 0.9754 |

The top two lines of Table 4.7: Probability of Large Early Containment Failure Conditional on Core Damage from p. 97 of the referenced study.

N.B. These page numbers are the PDF pages. The numbers printed on the bottom of the pages are different.
posted by ob1quixote at 1:13 AM on March 14, 2011 [7 favorites]

fairytale of los angeles, Here, Bugbread tells us: "It comes from the fact that when Japan was first modernizing, Osaka bought their generators from America (60Hz), and Tokyo bought theirs from Germany (50Hz)."
posted by zengargoyle at 1:14 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

zengargoyle, it's 60 in Tokyo, 50 in Osaka.
posted by Ghidorah at 1:16 AM on March 14, 2011

According to Wikipedia (here):

In Japan, the western part of the country (Kyoto and west) uses 60 Hz and the eastern part (Tokyo and east) uses 50 Hz. This originates in the first purchases of generators from AEG in 1895, installed for Tokyo, and General Electric in 1896, installed in Osaka. The boundary between the two regions contains four back-to-back HVDC substations which convert the frequency; these are Shin Shinano, Sakuma Dam, Minami-Fukumitsu, and the Higashi-Shimizu Frequency Converter.

Presumably, those substations have limited capacity to share power between the two halves of the grid, but IANAEE.
posted by zachlipton at 1:16 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Good to know, I'm just cut-n-pasting. :)
posted by zengargoyle at 1:17 AM on March 14, 2011

Huh, weird. I've been under the impression all these years it was Tokyo at 60. Wikipedia says differently, mayhap I'm wrong.
posted by Ghidorah at 1:19 AM on March 14, 2011

I read in the mega thread that the Fukushima plant was due for retirement -- this month, if I'm not mistaken. Has anyone heard anything more about this, specifically what its replacement was supposed to be?
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:19 AM on March 14, 2011

Celsius1414: Has anyone heard anything more about this, specifically what its replacement was supposed to be?

According to this Wikipedia article, Reactors 7 and 8 were being planned for October 2017 and 2018, respectively. I don't think Reactor 1 needed to be replaced immediately, since Reactors 3-6 were already off (for normal maintenance). Furthermore, Fukushima 2 also had 2 reactors turned off at the time. Each of them with power generating capacities more than double of F1#1.
posted by thebestsophist at 1:37 AM on March 14, 2011

calamari kid:

The #2 reactor is the last one which was running at the time of the quake/tsunami, yes?

The #2 reactor was the last one running at this plant. There were problems with #1 first, then with #3, and now with #2. Units 4 through 6 were offline due to maintenance at the time of the quake.

I've read that 11 reactors in Japan shut down when the earthquake hit. I don't know how many of these are having cooling problems after shutdown. Almost all the news has been about the Fukushima Daiichi plant, so I assume the other plants are in a better situation.

I found this Canadian Press article which says that two other plants (Fukushima Daini and Onagawa) are also in states of emergency. But their info about Onagawa seems to be out of date. The IAEA says "radioactivity levels at the site boundary of the Onagawa nuclear power plant have returned down to normal background levels. ... Investigations at the site indicate that no emissions of radioactivity have occurred from any of the three units at Onagawa. ... the increased level may have been due to a release of radioactive material from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant."

TEPCO's press release about Daini says all reactors at this plant have AC power, and adequate water levels covering the core. "Reactor pressure suppression function was lost" on March 12th for two reactors - this sounds bad to me, but I'm not an expert. They haven't had to vent any steam, so maybe they have a backup system. "Restoration work in reactor cooling function is in progress" on three of the Daini reactors. Radiation levels are normal.

So it sounds like the three reactors at Fukushima Daiichi are the only ones with serious problems now. Daini has some problems too, and I don't know if they could become serious in the future. But the Daini reactors are in much better shape than the problem ones at Daiichi - no core damage, adequate water levels, and no detectable radiation leakage.
posted by problemspace at 1:39 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

none of the reports are likely to be any-wears close to the truth of the matter given the history of the Japanese nuclear power industries penchant for dishonesty

After disasters occur and the aftermath clears, a lot of what nuclear power operators say about the safety of their technology and their recovery procedures is found out to be lies. This will no doubt be much different, as the official statements from the Japanese PM leading up to the first explosions suggested. I hope the US government has plans to help out the west coast if things get much worse.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:42 AM on March 14, 2011

New York Times article: A Look at the Mechanics of a Partial Meltdown
posted by nickyskye at 1:43 AM on March 14, 2011

BP, I'm fairly certain that the Feds are already on it. Hawaii is much closer than the West Coast, and the Pacific Fleet is already out there.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 2:25 AM on March 14, 2011

The Tokyo and Hong Kong markets closed down rather sharply, down 6 percent and more, yet the STOXX 50 is up slightly from Friday. American index futures are down, but not by much. Oil has dropped below $100. Apparently, the ex-Pac-Rim markets don't like headline disasters, but are happy to ignore what's roiling beneath them.
posted by nj_subgenius at 2:53 AM on March 14, 2011

Dear mefites who are scared of the (however limited, distant, and manageable) threat of being irradiated from events attending the greater incident:

Please find and remove all smoke detectors from your place of residence immediately because no shit those motherfuckers are radioactive as all fuck.

As we all know, it's better to die in a fire than under the threat of something you don't understand and find scary for both that reason and that of its unintentionally powerful choice of brand identity.
posted by 7segment at 3:16 AM on March 14, 2011 [6 favorites]

What's the correct number of nuclear meltdowns before we should worry? Earlier I said three, but I admit I pulled that number out of my ass. Never expected it to actually happen.
posted by ryanrs at 3:24 AM on March 14, 2011

BP, I'm fairly certain that the Feds are already on it. Hawaii is much closer than the West Coast, and the Pacific Fleet is already out there.

Apparently, one US military craft and several helicopters have already been irradiated from the fallout, as well as their crew.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:33 AM on March 14, 2011

Pretty close by, though (60 miles).
posted by ryanrs at 3:41 AM on March 14, 2011

Anyone downwind will get some non-zero dosage above background, especially if the containment vessels fail from further explosions, or as ongoing venting releases additional radionucleotides. Beyond exposure to south Japan, the wording from the NRC seems vague: "Hawaii, Alaska, the U.S. Territories and the U.S. West Coast are not expected to experience any harmful levels of radioactivity." What the NRC defines as "harmful" seems usefully non-committal and plastic.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:52 AM on March 14, 2011

Why weren't replacement batteries and generators flown in right away to avoid losing power?

I'd heard that they were, but the connection to the plant electrical grid was in a basement which flooded with mud during the tsunami.
posted by atrazine at 4:06 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Just tuned into NHK world English...

I believe they said a second explosion at the #1 reactor building, and they definitely keep repeating that TEPCO "cannot deny" that fuel rods in reactor #2 may be exposed and melting. They said the pump that was providing seawater to reactor #2 has failed.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 4:16 AM on March 14, 2011

Also, we basically have no idea what low levels of radiation do to populations. Our best model for radiation exposure is called the linear no-threshold model in which danger from radiation scales linearly with exposure and there is no safe minimum. We know that neither of these things is quite correct, but it is the best model we have. So what the NRC defines as harmful is bound to be fairly vague even if they are trying their best to tell the truth.

What's the correct number of nuclear meltdowns before we should worry? Earlier I said three, but I admit I pulled that number out of my ass. Never expected it to actually happen.

Well, one breach of containment is worse than any number of non-breaching meltdowns, but really it will depend on the after accident analysis. If later analysis shows that there was never any danger of a breach then that will be good, if it shows that there was (even if no breach actually happened) then we're in a different situation.
Another question is whether newer designs with passive cooling would have performed better in an identical earthquake + tsunami scenario.
posted by atrazine at 4:19 AM on March 14, 2011

On the other hand, if I leave early, I can beat the traffic.

A bit premature, of course, but ever since the earthquake, the worst case has been the rule, rather than the exception. (Also, I promised myself a po' boy in the event of a nuclear catastrophe.)
posted by ryanrs at 4:36 AM on March 14, 2011

A bit premature, of course, but ever since the earthquake, the worst case has been the rule, rather than the exception. (Also, I promised myself a po' boy in the event of a nuclear catastrophe.)

I suggest avoiding the shrimp. Also, crawfish. Clams. Well, fish in general. Dolphin meat, too. Spirulina (algae) wouldn't be a good idea, either, but you probably wouldn't ever eat that.
posted by loquacious at 5:37 AM on March 14, 2011

I believe they said a second explosion at the #1 reactor building

This is something I've been waiting for news on. When #3 blew, all the reports said there was also a cloud of smoke coming from #1. But that's the last I've heard of it, no explanation for what caused the cloud & no further mention of it.
posted by scalefree at 5:41 AM on March 14, 2011

I'm watching the local Fox nightly news on the other tuner, usually they are the most hyperbolic of our newsteams, and even they are going with the U.W. guy who first showed the pollution from China was coming over to the U.S. in the jetstream, saying minimal risk.

Hey, that's reassuring. Fox News always tells the truth.

Considering the history of Fox News and history in general, I would take that as a warning sign. Fox news being unalarmist and - at first glance - calm and rational means I'm checking out the ski reports for hell.
posted by loquacious at 5:48 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

loquacious, among other things, the area around Sendai (the natural bay there) was renowned for oysters and scallops. There's another chunk of the area's economy that will take years, if not longer, to recover.

Yeah, I was thinking about that earlier. How much Japan relies on fish for protein and food, and what the reactors and possibly irradiated seawater discharge would do to that.

However my comment was an aside to ryanrs, who is talking about driving to New Orleans for a po' boy since there's now three reactors involved.

Seriously, don't eat the shrimp. Corexit. Mmmm, tasty.
posted by loquacious at 5:52 AM on March 14, 2011

More, as mentioned above...

Radiation alert: U.S. ship contaminated 100 miles offshore -- U.S. shifts deployment due to alert; meantime, rods reportedly exposed at damaged reactor."
posted by ericb at 5:53 AM on March 14, 2011

Upthread, there is an explanation for why they want to prevent meltdowns, and as I have understood it, the reason is ultimately difficultly of cleanup (dog poo analogy). The third containment should still hold in the event of a meltdown, right? But if there were a complete meltdown, what about the steam being released into the air? How much more radioactive would it become? Or would they stop releasing the steam?

My apologies if my understanding is utterly wrong and/or this has been answered upthread.
posted by kitcat at 6:00 AM on March 14, 2011

BP, I'm fairly certain that the Feds are already on it.

It might be worth noting that the Feds were asleep at the switch for a good chunk of Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil disaster, when most of the long-term damage was done. Let's hope the NRC isn't lying, or, if it is, that some other agency in the government is capable of mobilizing prophylactic and cleanup efforts before the western states get too hot.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:13 AM on March 14, 2011

Here's a 12pm GMT article from WNN, "Explosion rocks third Fukushima reactor"

it says the normal pressure range is around 250 - 350 KPa (approx 50 psig) and the high was 840 KPa (116 psig.) This converts to normal temperature range around 135C (275F) and peak at 170C (338F.)

The discussion of pressures upthread was not correct claiming much higher temps and pressures.
posted by warbaby at 6:14 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I believe they said a second explosion at the #1 reactor building

What could that be? Shouldn't any hydrogen be venting directly to the atmosphere?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:17 AM on March 14, 2011

BBC News: Fresh explosion at Fukushima nuclear plant

A huge column of smoke billowed from Fukushima Daiichi's reactor 3, two days after a blast hit reactor 1.

The latest explosion, said to have been caused by a hydrogen build-up, injured 11 people, one of them seriously.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:17 AM on March 14, 2011

This is such a weird thread for metafilter. The tone is, we're not supposed to express concern unless we have reams of research on nuclear power to back up our feelings?

I'm not going to pretend to be a nuclear scientist, and I'm scared as fuck! This is not to take some silly pride in ignorance, this is simply to acknowledge that the public has a right to have opinions and feelings!

And I think the whole, "nothing bad could possibly happen!" and "the news would tell us if something bad was happening" contingents are kind of bizarre and counters historical example. Clearly, "bad" things are already happening. Even if this can't go wrong on the scale of Chernoblyl (which I'm not really clear is correct), that doesn't mean this is OK. Jesus.
posted by serazin at 6:45 AM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

Thank you to everyone contributing constructively to this thread. I've been reading MetaFilter all weekend instead of watching CNN and the like, and I've learned a lot (never really knew how a nuclear reactor worked and now I do!). However, living in the New Madrid Fault area the whole earthquake thing is freaking me out. I'm hoping all of this mess doesn't trigger some massive Earth moving stuff and set off one around the New Madrid Fault (the quakes in AR aren't helping either). Both of the MeFi quake threads have been most helpful and educational to me, so thanks!!

I'm sending the people of Japan all of the positive energy and good thoughts/prayers I can muster.
posted by MultiFaceted at 6:55 AM on March 14, 2011

Not to go all Zen here ... but this is - what it is. And frankly this thread (and the other one) have been enormously appreciated sources of reason and factual information amidst what I personally consider the complete circus of stupidity that I believe to be our American media. Seriously can't listen to any of it. You combine the ulterior motives of profit & fear-mongering and you get news for the sheeple. No thank you.

What's going on in relation to the nuclear power plants is undoubtedly NOT being completely revealed by "the authorities" - I'm not naive and I'm not unaware there is reason to be very, very concerned.

But I also still very much value a reasonable debate and airing of what facts are known ... combined with a sensible calm until solid, believable reason is given to consider a freak out. Especially - over here!

I personally refuse to go all chicken little and believe the sky is falling. My local paper here in NorCal has an article this a.m. about locals buying iodine tablets. REALLY????? Sigh.

I don't think anyone thinks this is "OK" on any level. I do think there are different levels however, of handling what's going on - ranging from reasoned to over-react.

Everyone - is entitled to their way of dealing with it. I do think though, there's more than enough nervous energy in the world right now and every bit of calm reason that can be mustered up by anyone certainly couldn't hurt......
posted by cdalight at 7:01 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

BBC News: Fresh explosion at Fukushima nuclear plant

A huge column of smoke billowed from Fukushima Daiichi's reactor 3, two days after a blast hit reactor 1.

the caption under the picture of the huge explosion:

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the core container at the reactor was still intact

i.e. after the explosion, radiation hasn't melted any of the emergency workers at the plant.... yet. I have no idea what an explosion like that does to cooling pumps/systems. I have no idea how you do an inspection of the reactor after that explosion. And I have no idea how you really engineer a "safe" nuclear plant when there are so many catastrophic edges cases like decaying rod casing produces hydrogen gas ---> BOOM!

If edge cases on an engineering project lead to the evacuation of everyone with 20km, you have to ask yourself what the total liability over the life the project is. It's a reasonable question to ask whether the liability is greater than the benefit even if you aren't particularly scared about radiation.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:03 AM on March 14, 2011

It's bad, but more on the TMI scale of bad rather than the Chernobyl level of bad.

The failure at Chernobyl was related to a horrible design and a significant degree of operator error. While this design apparently has significant issues (no passive cooling, some degree of risk that a meltdown could breach containment), the differences in design between these reactors and Soviet era RBMKs (such as the Chernobyl) reactor is massive.

Without graphite control rods to burn off the release of radioactive particles on the scale of Chernobyl doesn't seem possible even if the core should melt through containment. That isn't to say that this isn't an extremely significant event and perhaps these old designs should be phased out sooner rather than latter but the risk of a truly dangerous loss of containment seems to be small at this point in time.

I think what is really concerning is that it's quite likely that none of the damaged reactor units will see a return to production status. The loss of power generation related to them being permanently offline will be significant . One of the links posted upstream indicated that the long term reduction in power generation will have a negative impact on GDP. That's a very big problem given the amount of rebuilding necessary to get the country anywhere near it's pre-disaster condition.

Not only does Japan need to replace these damaged reactors but it seems like it would make sense to replace any reactors of a similar design.
posted by vuron at 7:09 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Things are bad, but, it's not the end of the world, folks.
There's no reason to over-react right now, unless you're in the immediate area, in which case, feel free to panic to your heart's content, if that makes you feel any better.
As the crisis develops (and eventually passes, hopefully), we'll get more information (even if some/lots/all of it are lies damned lies) and hopefully we'll get a better picture of what really happened here.
posted by yeoz at 7:10 AM on March 14, 2011

ryanrs writes "A bit premature, of course, but ever since the earthquake, the worst case has been the rule, rather than the exception."

That's not the case at all. Several worst cases did not not happen. For example they could have lost containment during the M9 or during the tsunami.

ennui.bz writes "If edge cases on an engineering project lead to the evacuation of everyone with 20km, you have to ask yourself what the total liability over the life the project is. It's a reasonable question to ask whether the liability is greater than the benefit even if you aren't particularly scared about radiation."

Many dams have evacuation zones covering hundreds of square miles and extending way farther than 20km.
posted by Mitheral at 7:10 AM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

... seconding the fact that concern is fine but unless you have experience/comprehension of the tech basics to back up any claims you make then maybe you would benefit from listening to some of the absolutes* that the more-knowledge (which I don't count myself among) are offering. Some common themes I've been noticing people re-hashing over and over due to misunderstanding the facts:

1) These reactors use a different technology than Chernobyl. Not more advanced (though it is), different. Inherently it is safer and virtually impossible to mimic the type of fires seen at Chernobyl.
2) As long as containment is maintained, things will be 1000x times better than if containment is breached.
3) Radioactivity, like it or not, is all around you as we speak. It is also not dangerous at low levels or else, as mentioned above, smoke detectors would not be the norm. That's not to say that the radioactivity being released is of a good type/level but it's nothing new for some situations. Leave the Geiger counters at the store.

I'm a huge fan of don't necessarily trust the politicians, but consider trusting your local physicists when they post informative, factual articles about things. And for what it's worth, covering up things at this point, with this kind of thing (radiation, nuclear reactors, etc) is not exactly easy/feasible due to the dissemination of knowledge in the worldwide community.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:12 AM on March 14, 2011

I sure sure would like to see numbers on the power requirements of the emergancy system. Much more than a couple hundred amps at a few hundred volts and you really can't jury rig things. Proper procedures need to be followed to prevent things like inductive heating.

I used to work in the touring industry. This statement is bullshit. I wouldn't leave an untrained person to do the job, but wiring up several kilowatts of electric power is laughably easy as long as you follow a few rather simply safety precautions.

Similarly, there are generators that are specifically designed to be dropped out of the back of a plane. I would hope that the Japanese self-defense force would have many of these on hand, and the logistics to deliver them at a moment's notice, if necessary. A sufficiently large helicopter could easily carry in a 30kW plant. (And of course, several helicopters could carry in several 30kW units)

There was a mention upthread of the plant's electrical distribution room being flooded/destroyed. This sounds like a much more plausible explanation than "The plugs don't fit," which almost immediately sounds like a mistranslation. From what I'm reading, it sounds like the tsunami did a lot more damage to the plant than the quake did, so I'm not sure if the "Only certified for a 7.9 quake" argument is a terribly valid one to make here.

Obviously, we're going to begin seeing Nuclear plants around the world being reevaluated for their safety (especially for obvious flaws such as a below-sea-level power room). I wouldn't be at all surprised if we began an accelerated retirement of all Mark I reactors still operating (or at the very least, required significant safety upgrades to their design to prevent the hydrogen explosion scenario, which we've now seen is pretty much 100% certain once the reactor is vented into the secondary containment). I would hope that we stop re-certifying older (and less safe) reactor designs, and start constructing new, safer alternatives.

From my understanding, the ABWR is a much, much better design, and would have survived this catastrophe without melting down.

(Also worth noting that reactors using the same design as Chernobyl are still in use today. There's even a new one being built for some reason.)
posted by schmod at 7:26 AM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

Not only does Japan need to replace these damaged reactors but it seems like it would make sense to replace any reactors of a similar design.

Start with bigger walls to deflect incoming tsunami.
posted by Celsius1414 at 7:51 AM on March 14, 2011

Arclight's employers told him to cease and desist pending meetings with chain of corporate command.

I guess everyone who thinks the physics nerds are furiously masturbating over the potential for disaster will be glad of one less filthy public display now. I know I'm sure not, though.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 8:01 AM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

Fuel rods in Reactor #2 were apparently "Fully exposed" for 2.5 hours. No idea what that actually means...
posted by schmod at 8:06 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Damn, I hope archlight doesn't take needless flak for publicizing his thoughts for the public benefit.

I wonder if doubters of his veracity will take this as vindication or if it will improve his former comments in their minds.
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:08 AM on March 14, 2011

You pretty much never want BWR fuel rods fully exposed without coolant, if my understanding is correct (and if it's not, Roland, PE, and others will correct me). Even in a decay-heat situation, that will degrade the ZrO coating, produce hydrogen gas, increase pressure, and increase heat leading to melting of the rods themselves.

Best case, containment is maintained but there's some degree of fuel rod damage.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 8:10 AM on March 14, 2011

NHK is saying that they closed the steam vent in reactor 2, pressure built up and they were unable to inject more water, the water evaporated, and the fuel rods were fully exposed *again* at 11 p.m.
posted by Jeanne at 8:15 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Unfortunately, the bickering of the pro and anti nuclear camps has extinguished the conversation about the 3 potential meltdowns underway. The other thread is best left to the human element. Can we get back on track with a conversation/analysis of the events, and leave the bickering for metatalk?

I hope we can all agree that a thermo nuclear, Chernobyl, or otherwise doomsday event won't happen.

On that note, i wonder what the effects of boiling off sea water will be. Presumably the cooling water will become super salty, and will leave a lot of the heavier elements in the coolant.

To pump water into the containment vessel, the pressures need to be low, thereby lowering the boiling point of the water. Sea water boils at a lower temp than de ionized water. So boiling off a lot of sea water seems plausible.

Normal sea water is 3%-5% salt. If they boil off 20x the volume of the vessel, they will have salt (sodium chloride) filling the vessel.

What would a nuclear reactor packed in salt mean? Obviously a long term clean up and corrosion problem, but what about radioactive byproducts, heat transfer, conductivity, etc?
posted by karst at 8:15 AM on March 14, 2011

This just in from the BBC site:

1431: More from Japanese nuclear engineer Masashi Goto: He say that as the reactor uses mox (mixed oxide) fuel, the melting point is lower than that of conventional fuel. Should a meltdown and an explosion occur, he says, plutonium could be spread over an area up to twice as far as estimated for a conventional nuclear fuel explosion. The next 24 hours are critical, he says.
posted by Duug at 8:16 AM on March 14, 2011 [6 favorites]

Arclight came back briefly to say that his job is safe but he has been instructed to leave communication to, basically, PR flacks.

As someone who was once in school to be a crisis PR flack or similar ("communications research" major), I cannot express how angry that makes me.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 8:17 AM on March 14, 2011 [6 favorites]

Plus -

1422: Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this. More on Mr Goto's remarks to follow.
posted by Duug at 8:17 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

fairtytale: I'm not deeply educated about the metallurgical changes that may occur due to their exposure but you're spot on when you say "you never want them exposed without coolant". Not in situations like this anyway.
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:18 AM on March 14, 2011

I hope we can all agree that a thermo nuclear, Chernobyl, or otherwise doomsday event won't happen.

I agree. Fukushima seems to be coming into its own now as a synonym for something. What that will eventually be remains to be seen.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:20 AM on March 14, 2011

BBC again:
1521: Fears of a partial meltdown at the Fukushima plant would appear to be growing, as Kyodo news agency reports that fuel rods in number 2 reactor are again "fully exposed".
posted by Duug at 8:23 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Salt melts at 1500 F, or 800 C. Imagine the mess at the floor of the containment vessel.

Chlorides (sea water byproducts) are a volatile byproduct. Oxides (fresh water byproducts) not so much. Hydrogen will be present in both cases.

My dad was a nuclear chemist. Worked with Oppenheimer once, way back when. I asked him what the effects of sea water in the reactor core would be, and he just shook his head. He said this is just a huge mess on so many levels.
posted by karst at 8:30 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think it's safe to say that TMI has been eclipsed. We are still shy of a Chernobyl scale event, but this story is still unfolding. Obviously the nature of the 3 events is different, and a Chernobyl style event is impossible. But that doesn't mean that this couldn't be worse in scale.
posted by karst at 8:33 AM on March 14, 2011

So now the steam vent is closed shut and they can't vent steam on the reactor? Even if the temperatures are below the levels required to melt the fuel rods, presumably the pressures being built up in the containment vessel will force ruptures in the cooling system sooner or later.
posted by vuron at 8:34 AM on March 14, 2011

The Guardian:

"Japanese officials say the nuclear fuel rods appear to be melting inside all three of the most troubled nuclear reactors, according to Associated Press."
posted by abx1-se at 8:35 AM on March 14, 2011

I disagree somewhat. Should the MOX fueled reactor lose containment, that's going to be really, really bad. Maybe not Chernobyl, in terms of spread to the rest of the world, (especially since this isn't being covered up as Chernobyl was), but plutonium is really bad stuff. For the surrounding areas, uninhabitable is uninhabitable, regardless...
posted by Windopaene at 8:37 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

vuron wrote: So now the steam vent is closed shut and they can't vent steam on the reactor?

I have the same question. What is keeping them from venting the steam buildup like they would usually do? (I admit I am still learning here). Is there just not a physical vent in the containment vessel or is it because they can't open it because of radiation, etc?
posted by MultiFaceted at 8:38 AM on March 14, 2011

There appears to be a problem with one of the valves in reactor 2 -- it's not clear whether it's a valve on the containment vessel or the pressure vessel -- that's preventing them from venting the steam buildup.
posted by Jeanne at 8:39 AM on March 14, 2011

Given the updates I've woken up to, I'm becoming increasingly desperate for that explanation of Table 4.7 I was asking about earlier.
posted by ob1quixote at 8:39 AM on March 14, 2011

The fuel rods in reactor 2 were completely exposed at 11:20 p.m. and are still exposed now (12:40 p.m. now in Japan).
posted by Jeanne at 8:44 AM on March 14, 2011

Quick thought, did the 2nd explosion coincide with the aftershock?
posted by karst at 8:45 AM on March 14, 2011

I will miss @arclight's insightful commentary.

Recent TEPCO announcements (Mar 14, 2011)

Occurrence of a Specific Incident (Failure of reactor cooling function) Stipulated in Article 15, Clause 1 of the Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness

water injection into Unit 2's reactor were being carried out
by the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System. However, as the Reactor Core
Isolation Cooling System failed ... at 1:25 pm today.

White smoke around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 3 (3rd release)

At approximately 11:01am, an explosion ... at the reactor building of Unit 3 ... believed to be a hydrogen explosion.

... it is believed that the reactor containment
vessel remains intact. However, the status [is] under
investigation.

As of 1:30 pm, 4 TEPCO employees and 3 workers from other companies have
sustained injuries ...

As of 0:30 pm, the measured value of radiation dose near MP6 was 4μSv/h.

As of 0:30 pm, the measured value of radiation dose at the monitoring
post in Fukushima Daini Power Station located approximately 10 km south
of Fukushima Daiichi Power Station remains at the same level.

In light of the incidents that have occurred at Units 1 and 3, we are
considering applying prevention measures to the wall of the reactor
building to ventilate the hydrogen gas contained in Unit 2.
posted by zippy at 8:49 AM on March 14, 2011

"3rd release" in the link above means third updated press release.
posted by zippy at 8:50 AM on March 14, 2011

Hello in there? Please give me something to counter a d-in-law in the Bay Area looking at $100 Radiation Protection Emergency kits? It's gotten too quiet around here all of a sudden ... where's my does of reasoned reality?
posted by cdalight at 9:07 AM on March 14, 2011

-possibility of al- queda exploding dirty bomb in us city feasible.

-possibility of damaged nuclear reactor spreading radiation unfeasible.

*recalibrates media info absorber*
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:11 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

How do you apply prevention measures to the wall of reactor #2? Draw straws for who goes up there with a Sawzall? I wouldn't want to be the one that is tasked with doing that.
posted by karst at 9:11 AM on March 14, 2011

They have measured a radiation level of 3000 microSieverts/hr at Daiichi. This is still not a level that's going to cause radiation poisoning in a short period of time, but it's six times the legal limit, and three times anything they've measured so far there.

They have recorded 113 microSieverts/hr at Daini, 10 km south of Daiichi. I think the worry is that this may be radiation spreading from Daiichi, since Daini mostly has cooling systems back and is hardly producing any more radiation than normal.

There are over 200 civilians still in the exclusion zone, mostly hospital patients. The Self-Defense Forces are working on evacuating them.

People on Twitter are writing senryu (humorous poems that follow the 5-7-5 syllable haiku format) about exposed rods.
posted by Jeanne at 9:12 AM on March 14, 2011

cdalight, point her at University of Washington Meteorologist Cliff Mass's web page. As I mentioned. . . here? in the other thread? my brother worked for Dr. Mass for many years, and the man is flat brilliant. The changes he's made to the field of meteorology in terms of probabilistic prediction are incredible.

I mean, he's a coot, too. But a very smart coot.
posted by KathrynT at 9:12 AM on March 14, 2011

Sorry -- the radiation level they recorded at Daini is actually 9.4 microSievert/hr.
posted by Jeanne at 9:14 AM on March 14, 2011

You could explain to your in-laws that the Pacific ocean is extremely big and even if their was a catastrophic failure of containment that somehow spewed massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere the chances that enough of those particles would some how make it to the bay area and concentrate into a deadly dose is simply impossible.

Even Chernobyl with it's massive discharge of radioactive particles didn't generate a fallout zone anywhere near the distances that would be required.

Hell even Castle Bravo on the Bikini atoll didn't produce the level of fallout necessary to pose a significant health risk to the western US. I can't imagine a scenario that would ever lead to the western US being at any sort of significant risk.
posted by vuron at 9:15 AM on March 14, 2011

Vuron - KathyrinT .... thank you!!
posted by cdalight at 9:19 AM on March 14, 2011

Please give me something to counter a d-in-law in the Bay Area looking at $100 Radiation Protection Emergency kits?

I'll sell them one for half that. It'll work like a charm.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:19 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

New TepCo radiation measurement chart. The radiation level at the main gate has been pretty consistently around 4-6 microSv/hr, then started rising suddenly at 9:30 p.m. last night, went as high as 3130, and by the last time recorded (10:35) was down to 326.
posted by Jeanne at 9:23 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

"I'll sell them one for half that. It'll work like a charm."

LOL ~ I tactfully implied to my son that the only people that would benefit from what's in those kits ... are the people who pocket the bucks spent on them. Sad how much money for such wrong reasons - IS inevitably going to be made off the fear that's going to result from these latest developments.

Don't get me wrong - I am deeply concerned for and empathetic towards what the people of Japan are dealing with right now. I just think to be freaking out here on the West Coast of the U.S. is completely inappropriate.
posted by cdalight at 9:24 AM on March 14, 2011

In an effort to answer my own question I'm currently going over confidence intervals at Wolfram MathWorld, but it's proving impenetrable given the current levels of blood in my caffeine system.

Also, I just wanted to add that both very disappointed and unsurprised in CNN for the way they're handling news on the reactor problems at Fukushima.
posted by ob1quixote at 9:24 AM on March 14, 2011

Just catching up again.

Personal notes. Kyodo news services seems to be nothing but DOOOOOOMMMMM, thus, I've discounted them greatly in reports.

There are clearly two flaws in the safety design of these early BWRs in Mark I containments

1) The assumption that offsite or generator power could be restored within 8 hours was flawed. They had a plan for LOOP (Generators) and for loss of generators (batteries) and for loss of batteries (more batteries or portable generators being brought to the site.) All failed in the face of the combined quake and tsunami, and while they clearly thought that the could lose offsite power and the generators, they never thought that they couldn't then get to the plant and get generators or batteries online in 8 hours.

2) The Mark I containment is *very very* bad at hydrogen extraction. If they're going to continue to run these, they'll need to come up with a better way than they have, which is apparently "blow it up over the reactor."

3) I believe them when they say that the blasts haven't damaged containment -- the part of the building blown away is basically the crane lift bay, and if they had damaged containment, we'd be seeing a great deal more than 9.4&muSv/hr

4) There's been more evidence that sensors are down -- we keep seeing things that don't add up. If the fuel rods were indeed completely uncovered for more than a couple of hours, they'd probably have melted completely, and we're not seeing any evidence of that (we'd see much more CS and I than we are.

5) Time is starting to help. Every hour, the decay reactions lessen and the heat generated by the core drops. As long as they can keep the cores in a non-critical configuration, the job of cooling them will continue to get easier.

6) I do think there has been moderate to severe damage to the cores in F1#1 through #3. I don't think we've seen a slump to the bottom meltdown.

7) Containment has held. Pray that aftershock prediction doesn't come true, they don't need any more curveballs.

8) Aren't numbered lists fun?
posted by eriko at 9:25 AM on March 14, 2011 [17 favorites]

Eriko - yes they are (not to mention reassuring ....)
posted by cdalight at 9:27 AM on March 14, 2011

Another silly question: Once everything is cooled off safely, how would they know that the cores have melted? Are there windows or something so they could see in there? Especially if there is sensor damage or damage to the controls, etc how would they be able to tell what actually happened?
posted by MultiFaceted at 9:27 AM on March 14, 2011

9) ???

10) Profit!

No, really, that was a good post - thank you for it
posted by TheNewWazoo at 9:27 AM on March 14, 2011

Another silly question: Once everything is cooled off safely, how would they know that the cores have melted?

Imagine you left a tea kettle on for a few hours -- do you have to look inside to know what happened to the water?
posted by empath at 9:31 AM on March 14, 2011

Ultimately, they will have to dismantle the reactor and remove the remains of the core assy. That's not going to happen anytime soon.
posted by warbaby at 9:33 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

@cdalight: Its about 5133 miles from Japan to San Francisco (calculated from Tokyo, but its a good enough number for our purposes). Here is a map of the Chernobyl plume. Note that the plume peters out around the 900 mile mark.

Even given the jet stream, there would have to be a much, much, MUCH bigger event than is currently possible (even given three reactors in full meltdown mode) for us to see any issues on the west coast.
posted by anastasiav at 9:34 AM on March 14, 2011

7) Containment has held.

eriko, what do you make of the claim that the Mark I containment is also unusually vulnerable, made in the Union of Concerned Scientists' Sunday Update on Fukushima Reactors that ob1quixote linked above? It references a study at the NRC site that notes, "A very important feature of these results is that there is a very high probability of a melt-through failure. The probability of an early melt-through failure given core damage is roughly 36% for all cases":

The Mark I is unusually vulnerable to containment failure in the event of a core-melt accident. A recent study [pdf] by Sandia National Laboratories shows that the likelihood of containment failure in this case is nearly 42% (see Table 4-7 on page 97). The most likely failure scenario involves the molten fuel burning through the reactor vessel, spilling onto the containment floor, and spreading until it contacts and breeches the steel containment-vessel wall.

The Sandia report characterizes these probabilities as “quite high.” It’s not straightforward to interpret these results in the context of the very complicated and uncertain situation at Fukushima. But they are a clear indication of a worrisome vulnerability of the Mark I containment should the core completely melt and escape the reactor vessel.
posted by mediareport at 9:35 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I assume that once the cores are in a more safe configuration even if they are partially or totally melted that remote cameras and sensors can be inserted into the containment vessel to ascertain the damage level to the fuel rods.

At a certain point in time they'll probably want to actually dismantle and remove the reactor and fuel. I believe that's what they did with TMI. As long as the containment unit remains whole and the fuel doesn't melt through it they should be able to clean up the facility to a degree.

I doubt that any of the 3 reactors damaged will be used again and it seem unlikely that their building will see new reactors.
posted by vuron at 9:35 AM on March 14, 2011

Imagine you left a tea kettle on for a few hours -- do you have to look inside to know what happened to the water?

Well no...but I could pick up a teakettle and wave it around to listen for sloshing instead of looking inside.
posted by MultiFaceted at 9:36 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Won't be no sloshing after a few hours.
posted by rainy at 9:40 AM on March 14, 2011

cdalight: The sorts of things one already has in one's quake kit are sufficient for lots of emergencies. Anything your DIL might maybe possibly outside-chance need for a radiological hazard-- potassium iodide, for instance-- would be provided by local authorities.

Long pants, long-sleeved shirts, work gloves, good shoes, clean food and water, that stuff works for every emergency, and can be had much cheaper.

(You can debate how timely that provision would be all you want, I suppose, if you're that kind of person-- I know I am at times, thanks to my OCD-like brain misfire-- but picking up a bottle of KI pills would be way cheaper than any sort of "protection package," if you felt that way, and they last something like five years. Consider it a long-term investment for the disaster kit. Taking them would be premature and inadvisable if you're out here, though.)
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 9:41 AM on March 14, 2011

'[Masashi] Goto said that based on the reports it seems the mobile pump being used to push seawater into the No. 2 reactor had run out of fuel. He didn't know what kind of pump was being used. Goto, who earned his PhD by evaluating the stress that reactor container vessel can endure, quit his job with Toshiba Corporation due to his concerns over reactor safety. "I came to the conclusion that the vessels being built were not adequate enough to be the last line of defense," he says. "They weren't designed to withstand the kinds of problems currently being experienced in the Fukushima plants." He now teaches design engineering at Shibaura Institute of Technology in Tokyo.'

That doesn't sound very promising.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 9:45 AM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

1422: Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this. More on Mr Goto's remarks to follow.

What I read here.

"I designed this, it failed, and I better throw someone else under the bus before they came for me."

The exact specs that this building was designed to handle are known -- IIRC, .18G ground movement over a couple of meters for 30 seconds. That's a very severe earthquake.

If the containment couldn't have handled the quake and tsunami, you figure one of the six plants at the station would have had a complete core breech by now. The fact that they were able to keep primary cooling going until the tsunami hit shows that the reactor handled the quake quite well. The fact that they were able to keep the RCICs going until the batteries died shows that the emergency systems handled the quake and tsunami quite well.

The fact that they assumed they'd have power back in 8 hours after a complete loss of power, that was a mistake, but that -- not the quake, not the tsunami -- is what killed this reactors.

The problem wasn't the buildings -- they performed to the spec they were built to. The problem was the specs weren't good enough in the face of a huge area disaster.

Oh, yeah
He say that as the reactor uses mox (mixed oxide) fuel, the melting point is lower than that of conventional fuel.

Yes, but both are far above the melting point of the fuel rod cladding, PuO₂ melts at 2400C, UO₂ at 2865C. Almost all metals melt below 1500C. In fact, because the Pu fraction is so low and there are other things involved in fuel rods, you can treat MOX fuel the same as UO₂ fuel -- at a very large molar fraction of .15, MOX will fully melt at 2787C, compare to the 2865C of pure uranium fuel, and at a more likely .05 fraction, that melt rises to 2818C. At these temps, ~50C is simply not a useful difference.
posted by eriko at 9:46 AM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

bummer about @arclight.
posted by mwhybark at 9:46 AM on March 14, 2011

Translator coworker just provided this Yomiuri report (auto-translated version), and then said "serious trouble." It gives a little more data about how much fuel rod exposure has gone down at Unit 2.

(3.7m out sounds... quite dire.)
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 9:48 AM on March 14, 2011

Considering that Japan is not really in a position to abandon Nuclear reactors I think it will be interesting to see if this speeds up adoption of some of the more cutting edge designs being developed.

Something like the pebble bed reactor design seems like it's much more accident resistant because the design is inherently developed to run at extremely high temperatures.
posted by vuron at 9:58 AM on March 14, 2011

I'm still waiting for corroboration about the water levels at Unit II. I've heard allegations ranging from a completely uncovered core, to a stuck pressure relief valve and rising pressures. I've heard nothing nothing from the official sources (TEPCO, IAEA) and I share eriko's suspicion of the instrumentation, but in the meantime I'm biting my nails. It's going to be a tense few days.
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:58 AM on March 14, 2011

I used to work in the touring industry. This statement is bullshit. I wouldn't leave an untrained person to do the job, but wiring up several kilowatts of electric power is laughably easy as long as you follow a few rather simply safety precautions.

Several kilowatts (say 5000) is only ~20A at 240 Volts. Yep any monkey could handle that as it is a trivial amount of power. 200A at 600V is 120 kilowatts or about a tenth of a megawatt. That is some serious power no matter how you want to slice it.
posted by Mitheral at 9:59 AM on March 14, 2011

"I designed this, it failed, and I better throw someone else under the bus before they came for me."

Well, that seems a bit unfair and actually a bit beneath you, eriko. It's unlikely Goto was the sole designer, and according to the comment just above yours, he quit over concerns they weren't being designed properly.
posted by mediareport at 9:59 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

blow-by-blow timeline presentation on NHK world right now (nope, now finished, I'd expect it to rerun):

http://jibtv.com/program/?page=0

I aslo think I just heard the newscaster say that TEPCO says #2's fuel rods are presumed to be fully exposed and that they 'cannot inject further coolant.' Apologies if that aspect has been covered upthread, returning to my readthrough.
posted by mwhybark at 10:06 AM on March 14, 2011

Reuters reporting that Japan has formally asked the US to come help out at Fukushima. That means the Pacific Fleet, since USN has all the reactor wonks.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 10:08 AM on March 14, 2011

The fact that they assumed they'd have power back in 8 hours after a complete loss of power, that was a mistake, but that -- not the quake, not the tsunami -- is what killed this reactors.

From what I'm understanding, the tsunami damage is what prevented them from restoring the power. If it actually was a matter of basement wiring in a seaside plant, that seems like a design flaw to this layman.

Something like the pebble bed reactor design seems like it's much more accident resistant because the design is inherently developed to run at extremely high temperatures.

There was some noise made about this several years back when the Chinese were looking to revive the idea. I haven't heard much about it since. Anything happening on that front?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:09 AM on March 14, 2011

"I designed this, it failed, and I better throw someone else under the bus before they came for me."

I don't think so.. even if he was saying that in bad faith, which is not likely, he wouldn't do it so crudely, I would think. He quit designing reactors and became a professor, sounds like it'd be a large cut and salary and in light of that his story of disagreements with the company about safety make sense.

Anyway, I think he might be talking about containment's integrity in case of full meltdown?
posted by rainy at 10:14 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Why has arclight been silenced? Could it be that Fauske associates are being pressured by the Industry?
posted by adamvasco at 10:14 AM on March 14, 2011

The fact that they assumed they'd have power back in 8 hours after a complete loss of power, that was a mistake, but that -- not the quake, not the tsunami -- is what killed this reactors.

The problem wasn't the buildings -- they performed to the spec they were built to. The problem was the specs weren't good enough in the face of a huge area disaster.

To imply that the main failure here was that they only had 8 hours of battery backup instead of 80 is pretty remarkable. Designing a reactor that requires uninterrupted power to prevent it from melting down is a terrible idea. Period. No series of backup generators or layers of redundancy will fix that.
posted by euphorb at 10:19 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Something like the pebble bed reactor design seems like it's much more accident resistant because the design is inherently developed to run at extremely high temperatures.There was some noise made about this several years back when the Chinese were looking to revive the idea. I haven't heard much about it since. Anything happening on that front?

Not really. The Chinese are still operating a prototype and designing another [pdf]. The South African company that drummed up all the media attention has gone under. There are lots of safety risks that are specific to the pebble bed design, including lack of containment, the presence of graphite, and the highly enriched fuel required.
posted by Popular Ethics at 10:20 AM on March 14, 2011

mediareport, I'm continuing my crash course in Probabilistic Risk Assessment (q.v. Probabilistic Risk Assessment: What Is It And Why Is It Worth Performing It?), but my initial impression is that the statement the likelihood of containment failure in this case is nearly 42% implies a naive interpretation of the numbers in Table 4-7.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:21 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

no pressure release, no coolant injection, yes, that is what they are saying. Great.
posted by mwhybark at 10:22 AM on March 14, 2011

Why has arclight been silenced?

The only things I can derive from Arclight's tweets are:

1) It's not his boss telling him this; it's people further up the line from the local office. That's standard in lots of places-- for instance, my manager in VFX never tells us not to talk to vendors or the media, it's always the publicity head or the studio director or the CEO.

2) Those people would prefer-- in fact, they insist-- that he leave the exposition to the media professionals, as there is "a lot at risk" for them. Obviously they are worried about harm to the bottom line; it is a corporation we're talking about here, not Arclight himself.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 10:23 AM on March 14, 2011

no pressure release, no coolant injection, yes, that is what they are saying. Great.

So, the containment is just going to explode eventually? That hardly sounds like a plan.
posted by anastasiav at 10:24 AM on March 14, 2011

Designing a reactor that requires uninterrupted power to prevent it from melting down is a terrible idea. Period. No series of backup generators or layers of redundancy will fix that.

That's a bit hasty. For every backup system, the risk of failure goes down. You can analyse the "Probabalistic Risk Assessment" and decide how much backup you need to prevent consequences under increasingly severe events. I have no idea whether the safety assessment for this system was realistic or accurate, but given the size of the earthquake and the death toll in the area, the fact that the reactors have been damaged, but have not caused major releases or injuries is a testament to good planning and design. Newer BWRs designs include more robust "station-blackout" capable (passive) shutdown cooling systems.
posted by Popular Ethics at 10:28 AM on March 14, 2011

Well you can have steam leaks develop without necessarily having a catastrophic explosion in the main containment vessel. There must be tons of high pressure pipes leading in and out of the reactor, presumably any one of the welds could start venting steam prior to the central reactor casing having a massive steam explosion. Not that they are wanting to have uncontrolled venting of any sort.
posted by vuron at 10:30 AM on March 14, 2011

"I designed this [containment vessel], it failed, and I better throw someone else under the bus before they came for me."

I thought that the Fukushima-1 Unit-1 Mark I containment vessel was designed by General Electric.
posted by zippy at 10:32 AM on March 14, 2011

anthill, maybe. I doubt the turbines would have survived the tsunami though.
posted by atrazine at 10:32 AM on March 14, 2011

anthill: no, because if it's structurally damaged, it might lead to runaway criticality. That's even much worse. If control rods are damaged you can't insert them and stop the reaction. Earthquake == best to shut everything down and deal with lesser problems afterwards.
posted by rainy at 10:33 AM on March 14, 2011

In hindsight, would it have been better if they'd kept one reactor operating to power the cooling pumps for the other two reactors? Would it have been possible to keep the steam turbines spinning during an earthquake / tsunami?

I don't think it works that way.. The generation capacity of that reactor is huge, and the generated energy has to go somewhere. Power distribution lines are down though. So, you'd have to have an on site system for dissipating that energy. And then there are a thousand other considerations. So, I just don't think it works that way.
posted by Chuckles at 10:34 AM on March 14, 2011

Also, part of what make probabilistic risk assessment difficult are so called "common cause" accidents. When the same incident disables multiple "independent" backups.
posted by atrazine at 10:34 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think all the reactors get automatically scrammed anthill, while I guess in theory one of the 3 offline reactors could be started to provide local power to the disabled 3 that seems like it has the risk of adding to the problem as it's not certain that they weren't damaged as well. It's also quite likely that the electrical distribution network within the entire complex is severely compromised to the point where power wouldn't be able to be routed to the damaged cooling systems anyway.
posted by vuron at 10:35 AM on March 14, 2011

zippy: I don't know for certain but it sounds like there'd be a general design and then every installation would have some degree of customization. For example, a lot of the installations are rated at different power outputs. I'm sure there are many other customizations. He must be the designer who customized the overall design.
posted by rainy at 10:37 AM on March 14, 2011

Here's a little rundown on who did what at Fukushima Daiichi. Toshiba was the supplier and architect for Unit 3, in particular.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 10:38 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

In fact, there surely must be some modifications to the design to place it in an active seismic zone.
posted by rainy at 10:38 AM on March 14, 2011

Offered FWIW to whomever so interested from Greg Palast (and haven't even read it all myself yet - thought it might be pertinent to the discussion. If not - sorry):

Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants
The no-BS info on Japan's disastrous nuclear operators
posted by cdalight at 10:40 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Bugbread commented over on the main earthquake thread:

On the nuke front, they're saying that the valve won't open, so they're going to use another venting approach, which releases a lot more radiation (apparently they normally vent through water, which absorbs some radiation, but this time there isn't enough water, so they're going to vent directly from the inner chamber to the outer chamber.)

I don't know his source, presumably local media in Tokyo.
posted by nangar at 10:43 AM on March 14, 2011

@euphorb: I hear you when you say you would be much more comfortable with systems that do not require safety systems. I would too. But just like you accept a certain amount of risk every time you step into your car, the regulator accepts a certain amount of risk to provide a stable baseload power. They set that risk to be as small as possible. The alternative is deaths due to air pollution, day after day.

@atrazine: This certainly smells like a case of an unanticipated "common cause" accident, but we'll have to wait until the final analysis to know if the safety case was too optimistic. Thankfully the design requires features for post-accident mitigation (containment mostly) regardless of the failure mode.
posted by Popular Ethics at 10:43 AM on March 14, 2011

In hindsight, would it have been better if they'd kept one reactor operating to power the cooling pumps for the other two reactors? Would it have been possible to keep the steam turbines spinning during an earthquake / tsunami?

Only if you can correctly pick which of the 3 is the one that won't break during the quake & wave.
posted by scalefree at 10:45 AM on March 14, 2011

Some more info on who built/designed what at Fukushima-1 (Daiichi)

Units 1 and 2. Reactor supplied by General Electric. Architecture (the concrete containment?) by Ebasco, Construction by Kajima.

Unit 3. Reactor supplied by Toshiba. Architecture also done by Toshiba. Construction by Kajima.
posted by zippy at 10:48 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Wow, that Greg Palast article was full of all sorts of fearmongering and borderline racism.

"Beware Westinghouse is actually Toshiba!"

It seems only logical that US nuke industry types would seek to discourage outside plant operators from getting into the US market. More competition means lower profits. I'm not saying that future plants shouldn't receive significant scrutiny during the design, implementation and production phases but it really seems like the article linked is pushing more than a slight bit of agenda.
posted by vuron at 10:49 AM on March 14, 2011

Furthermore euphorb, I think it's probably a little unreasonable to expect the reactor to be completely unscathed after a natural disaster that has killed thousands and wiped out whole cities. I do expect the containment systems to work in this scenario mind you, and if they fail I will lead the charge for tighter regulation.
posted by Popular Ethics at 10:49 AM on March 14, 2011

should have previewed - fairytale of los angeles got it.
posted by zippy at 10:50 AM on March 14, 2011

Latest BBC Live note:

#1747: UK energy consultant Prof Ian Fells tells the BBC that widespread power blackouts across Japan pose a bigger problem for the population than radioactive leaks from broken nuclear reactors.

Prof. Ian Fells - Greg Palast - pick a perspective ... it's all out there to find.
posted by cdalight at 10:54 AM on March 14, 2011

So if the fuel rods are completely exposed and there is no way to add seawater coolant, we are just waiting for the core to meltdown completely and pool at the bottom of containment? Then we see if the containment can withstand both a pressure problem and molten Uranium sloshing around in the bottom?

I have a good idea of the actual melting point of these fuel rods, but how hot can they actually get? Eventually they are just going to melt through whatever containment they have, right?
posted by chemoboy at 10:54 AM on March 14, 2011

I have a good idea of the actual melting point of these fuel rods, but how hot can they actually get? Eventually they are just going to melt through whatever containment they have, right?

The worst case scenario tracks that path yes, but its likelihood isn't as certain as your post suggests. I'm still waiting to see reliable confirmation that they've lost the capacity to cool the core at unit 2.
posted by Popular Ethics at 10:57 AM on March 14, 2011

The alternative is deaths due to air pollution, day after day.

I don't want to start a pointless derail but this is untrue. The alternative to nuclear power is not burning coal. That's a strawman. The alternative is a mix of natural gas, wind and solar. Incidentally none of those technologies have a failure mode that involves making cities uninhabitable for thousands of years.

The reason new nuclear plants probably won't ever be built in the United States is because they are too expensive. That's partly because all of the redundant engineering that needs to go into them just to make them safe and partly because of the enormous up front fixed costs.

posted by euphorb at 10:59 AM on March 14, 2011 [8 favorites]

I have been looking for written information reflecting the statements from the press conference that NHK was basing their report on. However, I have had no luck. I haven't even been able to find a cited time for the press conference.

The most recent written official-source summary information is from 8:30 last night, if I recall correctly, and the most recent TEPCO updates are prior to the changes in the status of #2.

Katz at Yokosonews.com guy just described the news conference as 'kind of disorganized' and said he was waiting for better presentation of the data to discuss. It's 3am in Japan now, so presumably the next substantive updates will be in a couple-few hours barring some new surprise, like another hydrogen explosion.
posted by mwhybark at 11:01 AM on March 14, 2011

Will General Electric be liable for any of this? It seems like building something with a 40+ year lifespan, there's the potential for long-term liability of the sort that asbestos-linked industries face, vs whatever immediate profit is made from the sale/license of the design.

I do not mean to say General Electric is responsible. I am not qualified to do that, and this is clearly an 'act of god' event if ever there was one, but that does make me wonder what their liability is, and also whether their insurance for this (which I presume they would have in the vent of liability) would be bound to cover it.
posted by zippy at 11:02 AM on March 14, 2011

High-resolution satellite image of the Fukushima Dai Ichi Power Plant, after the second explosion.
posted by ltl at 11:04 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

The alternative to nuclear power is not burning coal. That's a strawman. The alternative is a mix of natural gas, wind and solar. Incidentally none of those technologies have a failure mode that involves making cities uninhabitable for thousands of years.

Rather than call it a strawman, can I call coal the only technology and infrastructure we presently have capable of supplying enough energy to keep all of our homes and industry, at present levels of consumption, lit up?

I hate coal, really. It is nasty. But is there really sufficient power capacity from natural gas, wind, and solar forecast in the next decade to cover our needs? Even forecast in the sense of 'Moon landing effort' budgets?
posted by zippy at 11:08 AM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

NYT report reflecting the new situation at #2.

I have been dissatisfied with the way the NYT has been using the world 'meltdown,' because it is not clear that it is being used to describe a specific set of conditions in the reactors. The article does not say the fuel rods are 'presumed to be fully exposed,' which is the phrase the NHKWorld news was using.
posted by mwhybark at 11:08 AM on March 14, 2011

For those of you debunking things for concerned relatives, here's your Snopes link for that bullshit "measured in rads" Australian map that went around two days ago.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 11:09 AM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

I'm not sure there is enough natural gas, wind, hydro and solar to satisfy the current level of demand in the world much less the anticipated demand as third world countries modernize. Conservation is going to help but I think it merely reduces the demand for newer plants, not completely replaces them.

I think for better or worse a mix of nuclear and coal is going to be with us for the foreseeable future, at least until the engineering issues surrounding positive energy production in a fusion reactor are solved.

That means we have to decide as a society which poison is better to swallow, the constant one from coal which could have very serious environmental consequences or the nuclear solution which is generally very safe but has had some very spectacular and scary accidents associated with it.

Neither one is particularly appealing but nuclear does seem to be the most realistic solution during the upcoming transition period from fossil fuel economy to a fusion based economy.
posted by vuron at 11:15 AM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

"In reactor No. 2, which is now the most damaged of the three at the Daiichi plant, at least parts of the fuel roads have been exposed for several hours, which also suggests that some of the fuel has begun to melt. If more of the fuel melts before water can be injected in the vessel, the fuel pellets could burn through the bottom of the containment vessel and radioactive material could pour out that way — often referred to as a full meltdown."

They're calling the "melt through"/"China Syndrome" scenario a "full meltdown". I thought it could fully melt into a puddle, still be contained, and be a "meltdown"? As I understand it, the hope right now is that it will be contained, even if it melts entirely. NYT seems to not mention that it's quite possible that containment won't fail.

Yay for scary anonymous sources:

“They’re basically in a full-scale panic” among Japanese power industry managers, said a senior nuclear industry executive late Monday night. The executive is not involved in managing the response to the reactors’ difficulties but has many contacts in Japan. “They’re in total disarray, they don’t know what to do.”

posted by BungaDunga at 11:18 AM on March 14, 2011

There are lots of safety risks that are specific to the pebble bed design, including lack of containment, the presence of graphite, and the highly enriched fuel required.

Exactly. Plus, Chernobyl -- just as TMI made reactors unpalatable in the US, Chernobyl made graphite moderated reactors unpalatable everywhere else.

It's unlikely Goto was the sole designer, and according to the comment just above yours, he quit over concerns they weren't being designed properly.

The difference between a whistleblower and someone covering their ass is the whistleblower starts yelling *well before* it happens, not after.

I'll admit that, with all the translations in place, that may in fact be the case, in which case, I will publically apologize to Mr. Goto. There has been more than once where translations have messed up tenses.

However, my experience with the people who come out after a disaster claiming that they knew it was a flawed design is that they fall into one of two classes -- publicity seekers and those trying to dodge the blame.

And it's very clear that this station was designed with the threat of severe earthquakes and tsunamis in mind. We even know what those specs were -- .18g, response spectrum similar to a 1952 California quake noted for long period shaking You can argue that they didn't design for a severe enough earthquake or a large enough tsunami, but they clearly were designed for severe earthquakes and tsunamis. One source I saw, but I'm not very confident in, said they had a 3m floodwall in place -- which, if true, is a solid tsunami protection system -- questions, of course, is that height the actual height of the wall (in which case, how high is the base over mean high tide?) or was that height over mean high tide? I suspect the former, because people in general don't consider water levels when they cite the height of a wall -- if it's a 10' wall, it's a 10' wall, which might protect against a 20 foot flood, since the base happened to be 10' over datum. Anybody walked the coast there?

Tsunamis of three meters above mean high tide are very rare on pretty much *every* section of coast in the world.

Would you have built for a 10m tsunami? Really? How many of those occur on any given point of the coast. Yes, 2004 Indian ocean -- but what tiny fraction of the world's coasts saw 10m? How often does it happen? The 1978 quake did send a tsunami of 60cm -- or .6m. Even if you demanded a factor of ten, you'd build a 6m high wall -- and you would have lost.

See the 7.2 M_w foreshock that hit two days before, or the 7.7 M_w Miyagi Earthquake that happened in practically the same place as the 2011 Sendai quake. Neither of those -- and while a 7.7 isn't a 9.0, it *is* a major earthquake. The reactors were thoroughly inspect after the 1978 Miyagi quake, where they'd sustained a .125g movement for 30 seconds, with no damage to anything important.

Looking over various lists of Japanese Earthquakes, you see most of the historical big ones in the 6.8 - 8.3, with the bigger ones to the north -- a quick sampling shows the further north, the worse they are, but that's *very quick*

How many buildings in the world can handle that? There were a fuckload in Kobe and San Francisco -- both known earthquake zones -- that failed dramatically under far less quakes.

The statement that they were not designed to handle severe earthquakes, and in particular, that the containment buildings were not designed to that spec, is quite simply incorrect. They were. They generally survived the damage.

The power systems did fail, and that's what's lead to the problems. But the containment structure *did not fail*, and if it does, it will because the lack of power caused cooling failures, not because the containment structure was damaged in the earthquake.

This is important, because if you go to retrofit, or design new reactors, making the containment structures stronger without looking at the power issues is a great way to make sure the next reactor fails during a large area disaster. Adding stuff that isn't needed raises the cost, but not the safety -- indeed, it can reduce the safety if it makes other systems problematic, or they're reduced because of cost.

Designing a reactor that requires uninterrupted power to prevent it from melting down is a terrible idea.

Doing so was very hard -- and to be honest, many people didn't (and don't!) trust passive safety systems. The US Navy is believed to be the first to truly crack passive cooling (but with PWRs) in the 720 submarines. It's only very recently that truly passive cooling designs have been possible -- the ABWR and APWR don't have them (though they do have dramatically reduced pumping requirements) and I think the ESBWR is the only design to offer true passive cooling using light water as a moderator. I think that maybe the Advanced CANDU is either fully passive or requires very little circulation in a shutdown state, but I'd need to go read up on them before I asserted that.

Most of the current designs limit the need for active pumping and then build multiply redundant pump and power systems. Later designs, with multiple active pumping circuits, also have multiple power systems to raise the redundancy.

It's not an easy thing to do. It's been a goal of reactor designers for a long time, but they're only just starting to crack it.
posted by eriko at 11:19 AM on March 14, 2011 [14 favorites]

my initial impression is that the statement "the likelihood of containment failure in this case is nearly 42%" implies a naive interpretation of the numbers in Table 4-7.

Mine too. Damn, I can't keep up with this thread while reading stuff like that. But it looks like they are saying that the probability of "large early" release is ~42% given that you increase pressure to the point where containment fails. Which is not happening so long as they can vent the pressure, and maybe not even if they couldn't. The rest of the time, when it does fail in their model of too much pressure, it fails some other way such as a smaller and slower leak.
posted by sfenders at 11:22 AM on March 14, 2011

I must say that while I'm horrified to have to be learning so much about nuclear plants right now, I thoroughly appreciate eriko and the others for being so informative. Politics aside (far, far aside), this kind of information exchange is powerful stuff.
posted by Celsius1414 at 11:24 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

UK NewsNow: Japan Earthquake - Nuclear Crisis

Another info resource.....
posted by cdalight at 11:24 AM on March 14, 2011

I don't want to start a pointless derail but this is untrue. The alternative to nuclear power is not burning coal. That's a strawman. The alternative is a mix of natural gas, wind and solar. Incidentally none of those technologies have a failure mode that involves making cities uninhabitable for thousands of years.

You might be right that nuclear power is too expensive to build in the US, with all it's engineered safety systems. All of the estimates and budgets I've read suggest that, while expensive, Nuclear is currently much cheaper than wind or solar, especially when you consider the price of the gas-fired backups (or stored energy facilities) required. Keep in mind that nuclear power produces a huge amount of energy, which can be used to offset the costs. We can get into whether we should force electricity costs to increase drastically by banning anything but renewables, but that's an argument for another time.

In the meanwhile, it's a bit dishonest to talk about accidents which could render a city uninhabitable for thousands of years. That's unlikely to happen, and to suggest it at this time is just fear-mongering.
posted by Popular Ethics at 11:25 AM on March 14, 2011

eriko: Why can't diesel generators alone be protected from a tsunami? I don't think you need a 12 meter wall, just a very thick enclosure for the generators. If the primary containment unit can survive the tsunami, why can't it be done for diesel generators?

For perspective, there was a 20m tsunami in Japan in 19th century. I would think if japanese people were told that yeah, a big tsunami is very likely to lead to a meltdown with currently used designs, they'd call for a change to new designs. But were they ever told that?
posted by rainy at 11:28 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

The reason new nuclear plants probably won't ever be built in the United States is because they are too expensive. That's partly because all of the redundant engineering that needs to go into them just to make them safe and partly because of the enormous up front fixed costs.

When President Palin takes office, safety measures won't add any overhead anymore.
posted by Flunkie at 11:28 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

The alternative is a mix of natural gas, wind and solar. Incidentally none of those technologies have a failure mode that involves making cities uninhabitable for thousands of years.

Well, in the case of natural gas, making (coastal) cities uninhabitable for thousands of years doesn't even involve a failure mode; it's simply a consequence of normal, intended operation.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:30 AM on March 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

We can get into whether we should force electricity costs to increase drastically by banning anything but renewables, but that's an argument for another time.

We don't even need to do that. We could start by eliminating the billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel technologies so we could at least compare them at something slightly closer to true cost.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:31 AM on March 14, 2011 [10 favorites]

The alternative is a mix of natural gas, wind and solar. Incidentally none of those technologies have a failure mode that involves making cities uninhabitable for thousands of years.

Funny, there are sure a shitload of dead people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki then -- and they're all walking around, talking, and are probably worried about relatives in the north of Japan.

Yes, Chernobyl was a fuck up -- but stating that nuclear power isn't safe because of Chernobyl is like saying cars aren't safe because of the Pinto.

Of the three, only solar has a chance in hell of matching nuclear's output abilities, but it's a horrible base load plant, because the *sun sets every day*

There is the idea of a solar plant in orbit beaming power down to the ground, but if I have a 1GW energy beam, while it won't make a city uninhabitable, you can bet I can kill a city with it.

We'll have to have active systems to automatically shut down the beam if it moves. BUT WHAT IF THEY FAIL?

What you are really saying is "If we can cut the energy consumption of human civilization dramatically, then we can get by with wind, solar, and natural gas (until it runs out too....)"

Crack that nut and your statement is only implausible.
posted by eriko at 11:34 AM on March 14, 2011 [8 favorites]

Well, in the case of natural gas, making (coastal) cities uninhabitable for thousands of years doesn't even involve a failure mode; it's simply a consequence of normal, intended operation.

Hrm? As far as I can tell, the worry is that it could potentially make them uninhabitable pretty much momentarily.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:35 AM on March 14, 2011

What the Media Doesn't Get About Meltdowns
posted by homunculus at 11:40 AM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Yes, Chernobyl was a fuck up -- but stating that nuclear power isn't safe because of Chernobyl is like saying cars aren't safe because of the Pinto.

+1

Sadly, you're going to get so many people who rail on because "nuclear plants are not cars, nuclear plants are dangerous!"....
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:40 AM on March 14, 2011

For instance, Bloomberg has reported that we actively subsidize fossil fuel energy sources (which you'd think would be mature enough we wouldn't still be having to subsidize them) to the tune of twelve times as much as we do the renewables (which, being relatively new, you'd think would need more subsidization). And that's not even taking into account military adventures in Nigeria, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world that are at least partly a cost of fossil fuels.

What you are really saying is "If we can cut the energy consumption of human civilization dramatically, then we can get by with wind, solar, and natural gas (until it runs out too....)"

Simple. Forget short-term economic harm, and focus on surviving. Ban non mass-transit vehicles except for limited official uses. Ha! Yeah right.

Sadly, you're going to get so many people who rail on because "nuclear plants are not cars, nuclear plants are dangerous!"....

Isn't the honest answer that both are dangerous but we may or may not have or accept various justifications for accepting the dangers? Nuclear power is definitely dangerous. Cars are definitely dangerous. Oil is definitely dangerous. Fire is definitely dangerous. No need to lie and say any of these things will ever actually be safe.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:44 AM on March 14, 2011 [8 favorites]

According to the US Department of Energy, 900 out of the next 1000 power plants built in the United States will be natural gas powered. It's basically just not possible to build a coal or nuclear plant in the US any more. If you look at the projected energy use in the US in 2035, nuclear and coal combined will be 60% of the energy mix compared with 65% now.
posted by euphorb at 11:44 AM on March 14, 2011

We have the remote, theoretical potential for steam or hydrogen to be trapped and explode under the plenum or potential corium in the Fukushima reactors, yes?

I wonder if anyone has analyzed what it would mean were a pressure vessel breach and upward ejection of the contents to occur at one of the Fukushima reactors (plume, local exposure) given a state where the cores have been shut down and cooled down for some time.
posted by zippy at 11:48 AM on March 14, 2011

Grimly amusing highlight of the other day: the anthropomorphized Fukushima Daiichi plant, on Twitter, calling Michio Kaku a "jerk" and an "alarmist" for a previous tweet all "Another Chernobyl?"

I know Kaku's a popular media figure-- I love me some Science Grandpa as much as anyone else when I need something to watch-- but, really, does he have any standing to be commenting extensively to the media here? He's a smart guy, yes, but I was under the impression that his distinction lay largely in the field of theoretical physics.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 11:49 AM on March 14, 2011

Does anyone know the volume of steam/hydrogen/whatever that's vented from these reactors? Is it feasible to have a tank on site to contain this stuff, at least temporarily?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:51 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Seriously, screw Michio Kaku. He keeps showing up places saying "Yo, time travel is totally possible. So is ESP, etc." or at least that's the impression I have of him. Like him going to be showing up on the rerun of Firefly explaining the "science" behind the show. I mean, really? Really. Science. I don't really trust him in the realm of popular theoretical physics, let alone nuclear power.
posted by BungaDunga at 11:52 AM on March 14, 2011

Like him going to be showing up on the rerun of Firefly explaining the "science" behind the show.

Firefly was actually pretty good on the science, with the exception of the extent of terraforming. /derail
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:56 AM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

zippy: "We have the remote, theoretical potential for steam or hydrogen to be trapped and explode under the plenum or potential corium in the Fukushima reactors, yes?"

That's my general impression given what appears to be the state of affairs at #2. I suppose it's not surprising that there's been no clearer written reporting, given the timeframe.
posted by mwhybark at 11:58 AM on March 14, 2011

Wow, that Greg Palast article was full of all sorts of fearmongering

I dunno, the bit about catching the New York nuke plant owners lying about seismic tests was interesting:

The most inexpensive way to meet your SQ ["Seismic Qualification"] is to lie. The industry does it all the time. The government team I worked with caught them once, in 1988, at the Shoreham plant in New York. Correcting the SQ problem at Shoreham would have cost a cool billion, so engineers were told to change the tests from 'failed' to 'passed.'

The company that put in the false safety report? Stone & Webster, now the nuclear unit of Shaw Construction which will work with Tokyo Electric to build the Texas plant, Lord help us...

In our racketeering case in New York, the government only found out about the seismic test fraud because two courageous engineers, Gordon Dick and John Daly, gave our team the documentary evidence. In Japan, it's simply not done. The culture does not allow the salary-men, who work all their their lives for one company, to drop the dime.

Not that US law is a wondrous shield: both engineers in the New York case were fired and blacklisted by the industry. Nevertheless, the government (local, state, federal) brought civil racketeering charges against the builders. The jury didn't buy the corporation's excuses and, in the end, the plant was, thankfully, dismantled.
posted by mediareport at 12:00 PM on March 14, 2011 [6 favorites]

Does anyone know the volume of steam/hydrogen/whatever that's vented from these reactors? Is it feasible to have a tank on site to contain this stuff, at least temporarily?

If you had a tank, you'd need something to compress the gases. Like an electric pump. Of course, the only reason we're in this situation is because backup power to the electric pumps failed. In other words, you wouldn't be able to use the tank in the only situation where it'd ever be useful. You could also have a passive tank simply attached by some plumbing, although it'd need to be huge in order to store any meaningful amount of hydrogen. (And then you'd have to figure out what to do with that hydrogen once it was stored, as you've now effectively created an enormous bomb)

The problem seems to be that the Mark I design called for excess hydrogen to be vented into the secondary containment building in the event of an over-pressure event inside the reactor. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have paid any attention to what would happen after you did that, and the building clearly was not designed to be a hydrogen storage vessel.

Browsing through Wikipedia shows that this was a known fault with the Mark I design, and that several reactors had been modified to prevent this very scenario from occurring.
posted by schmod at 12:01 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Not that US law is a wondrous shield: both engineers in the New York case were fired and blacklisted by the industry. Nevertheless, the government (local, state, federal) brought civil racketeering charges against the builders. The jury didn't buy the corporation's excuses and, in the end, the plant was, thankfully, dismantled.

Am I missing something? It sounds like the law worked exactly as intended. The corporation massively fucked up, and had to pay a massive penalty for it.
posted by schmod at 12:02 PM on March 14, 2011

Is it feasible to have a tank on site to contain this stuff, at least

I think not, given that a specially designed high vessel, the reactor pressure vessel, is already on site and is not strong enough to contain the pressures and volumes they are seeing.

Getting a large enough vessel (or enough vessels) on site such that the V in PV=nRT is large and the P is small would, I think, be an impossibly large undertaking and would also only serve as a place to accumulate gradually released and dispersed radioactive material in one place that could catastrophically fail, releasing it all at once, possibly in the wrong direction.

Given that they're feeding in sea water at I presume a high rate, that also means a lot of steam being made. Perhaps they could create a giant condensor?
posted by zippy at 12:02 PM on March 14, 2011

Hrm? As far as I can tell, the worry is that it could potentially make them uninhabitable pretty much momentarily.

Burning natural gas increases global warming.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:03 PM on March 14, 2011

schmod: he is saying the law failed to protect whistleblowers.
posted by rainy at 12:03 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

I want to say thank you to everybody here who keeps posting, all the recent media links are over my head and seem to be repeating themselves on here its a lot easier to understand.

How close are the people trying to control the rods working in relation to the reactors? Looking at the over head shot its amazing that they can get anything accomplished with the devastation around them. I assume they must be working close by if some were injured in the second explosion.
posted by lilkeith07 at 12:05 PM on March 14, 2011

Here's the relevant section from pg 76-77 of the study, published in 2006 and hosted at the NRC site. It's from the chapter about risk analysis of Mark 1 containment:

A very important feature of these results is that there is a very high probability of a melt-through failure. The probability of an early melt-through failure given core damage is roughly 36% for all cases. The probability of a failure in this mode is significantly higher than any of the other types of failure. The next most significant mode is early rupture, with a probability of about 6-7%, depending on the case, followed by wetwell venting, with a probability of about 2%. All of the other failure modes are relatively insignificant. The summation of all of the mean conditional probabilities for all of the modes listed in Table 4.5 is about 43.8% and changes very little as the various types of degradation are introduced. This dominance of the melt-through mode of containment failure....stems from the fact that the Mark I containment is relatively small, so that if the core were to melt, it would spread out over a relatively confined area, making it much less likely to cool off before penetrating the containment than it would be in a larger containment.

I don't hold this out as anything other than information I'd like to learn more about. But learning of this study a couple of days ago has been one of the main things keeping me from believing most of the "Nothing serious can possibly happen here" stuff, and if anyone has any thoughts to help counter that, I'd love to hear them.
posted by mediareport at 12:18 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

Would you have built for a 10m tsunami? Really? How many of those occur on any given point of the coast.

The San Onofre nuclear plant which is located in Southern California has a wall 9 meters above sea level and California doesn't have the same history of large tsunamis that Japan has.
posted by euphorb at 12:19 PM on March 14, 2011

The San Onofre nuclear plant which is located in Southern California has a wall 9 meters above sea level and California doesn't have the same history of large tsunamis that Japan has.

How are those rated? I'm thinking of Katrina here.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:25 PM on March 14, 2011

lilkeith07, the plant control will be happening from a centralized control room, but there will also be the occasional need to have people walking around the plant operating equipment manually or reading manual gauges. The control rods were inserted automatically before the earthquake tremors even reached the plant, and nobody is ever going to take them out now.

Fukushima's reactors were built in the pre-digital instrumentation 1970s, which means that are a shit-ton of analog wires running from every pressure gauge and motor starting cabinet to a central control room with a lot of chunky dials and gauges. The wiring requirements mean that the control room was probably built close to both the turbine hall (long narrow building) and reactor containment (tall square building with roof blown off).

My guess is that the control room for reactors #1 and 2 is in the small nub sticking off the top-left of the middle turbine hall, next to the white, cylindrical water tank. Or possibly between the steam turbine hall and the reactors.
posted by anthill at 12:27 PM on March 14, 2011

eriko, I appreciate all you've done in these threads. If you get the chance to respond to that Sandia study about the possible vulnerability of Mark 1 containment, I'm sure folks would value it quite a bit, since that seems to be the next major area of concern.

Yeah, I am not sure if it rates as vital area of concern or not, but I am having a hard time understanding it. Apparently skimming through the document with no actual knowledge of nuclear reactors made me confused, and I apologize for my previous comment.

Now I think it's saying that if the core does melt, that's bad. But it probably depends on stuff outside the scope of that study. What fraction of "core damage" events look anything like the present damage? Without that I don't think it's telling us much.
posted by sfenders at 12:33 PM on March 14, 2011

I'm not sure if this has been pointed out already, but TEPCO's latest site radiation measurements show the first positive levels of neutrons (中性子線) beginning yesterday. They are at very low levels - in the .001 to .002 µSv/hr range. All previous measurements were reported as undetectable/under .001 µSv/hr

The first local times showing a measurable level was 13 Mar 11: 5:30am. Subsequent measurements that day at 5:40am, 5:50am, 6:30am, 6:40am, 7:10am, 7:40am, 8:00am. 9:30am, 10:50am also showed measurable levels of neutrons.

On the 14 Mar 11: there was another positive measurement at 9:00pm. No measurements for neutrons were taken (or at least reported) from 14 Mar 11 10:40pm through the last report time of 15 Mar 11 1:05am. Gamma measurements continued, though.

(at 8:50am on the 14th they appear to have started a new kind of measurement, they are now sometimes reporting '0 µSv/h rather than '< .001 µSv/h')
posted by zippy at 12:42 PM on March 14, 2011

I've got some catching up to do on the thread, but I wanted to quickly point out the the way to solve the problem of the power beam from an orbital solar power plant wandering and potentially doing damage is to power the main beam with a return beam from the Earth station.
posted by ob1quixote at 12:43 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

An historic view of TEPCO Control Room #6 in reactor #1, Dai-ichi site, Futaba, Fukushima 福島第一原子力発電所 via Flickr's anaguma
posted by zippy at 12:45 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

But are we anywhere close to being able to deploy commercial scale solar arrays in space that can beam energy back to distribution centers on the ground via micromave bursts ob1quixote?

I mean I'm in favor of sci-fi solutions to the world's power problems as well but it seems unlikely that the materials technology necessary to generate those sorts of power requirements in orbit are currently beyond our capabilities. Not to mention the immense expense of lifting said stations into space. I have read some research that talks about folding vast thing sheets of photovoltaic cells but I thought we were still talking the infancy of that sort of technology.
posted by vuron at 12:48 PM on March 14, 2011

Can someone comment on this bit about the spent fuel pools rom the Washington Post's article on the situation? I haven't seen this reported anywhere else. Really missing arclight this morning.

At the 40-year-old Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1, where the explosion Saturday destroyed a building housing the reactor, the spent fuel pool, in accordance with General Electric’s design, is placed above the reactor. Tokyo Electric said it was trying to figure out how to maintain water levels in the pools, indicating that the normal safety systems there had failed, too. Failure to keep adequate water levels in a pool would lead to a catastrophic fire, said nuclear experts, some of whom think that Unit 1’s pool might now be outside.

“That would be like Chernobyl on steroids,” said Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer at Fairewinds Associates and a member of the public oversight panel for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which is identical to the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1.

People familiar with the plant said there are seven spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiichi, many of them densely packed.

Gundersen said the Unit 1 pool could have as much as 20 years of spent fuel rods, which are still radioactive.

posted by dialetheia at 12:49 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

I have a question about the control rods - does gravity hold them in place, or are they locked in? Would high pressure under the core, or the core being flipped, cause them to retract?
posted by zippy at 12:51 PM on March 14, 2011

Mark I containment is relatively small, so that if the core were to melt, it would spread out over a relatively confined area, making it much less likely to cool off before penetrating the containment than it would be in a larger containment.

Ah... so if there were a total meltdown, and it if melted through or otherwise destroyed the reactor vessel, then there's a good chance it would penetrate the part of the steel containment they model, but that does not include the outer containment building.
posted by sfenders at 12:51 PM on March 14, 2011

you're going to get so many people who rail on because "nuclear plants are not cars, nuclear plants are dangerous!"....

"Recalling" nuclear power plants, unlike recalling cars (re: the Pinto) is not really an option. Bot the nuclear power industry and the auto industry are regulated for safety, but it seems obvious that the safety regulations of nuclear are far more complex. After all, the consequences of a Pinto failing are likely to be a few unnecessary deaths, while the consequences of a reactor failing could be tens of thousands of deaths and a large swath of landmass made dangerous and/or uninhabitable due to radiation. So, yeah, the stakes in terms of potential failure are actually much higher with nuclear power than with automobiles.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 12:52 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

zippy: somewhere up the thread there was a quote from a good source that control rods do latch in.
posted by rainy at 12:53 PM on March 14, 2011

Can someone comment on this bit about the spent fuel pools

1) Japan reprocesses its fuel. I don't know for sure, but it seems unlikely they'd have 20 years worth on site.

2) I think arclight said that the pool above the reactor was only used while loading and unloading fuel, rather than for long-term storage of spent fuel.

(small world disclaimer, I thinkArnie Gundersen was my uncle's neighbor, and decades ago gave me a tour of a the nuclear energy company where he worked. I should get in touch with him)
posted by zippy at 12:54 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Kyodo News, reporting on the 'fully exposed' information:

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/77943.html

"The plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., said a steam vent of the pressure container of the reactor that houses the rods was closed for some reason, raising fears that its core will melt at a faster pace. It said it will try to open the vent to resume the operation to inject seawater to cool down the reactor.

Despite its earlier attempt to do so, however, water levels sharply fell and the fuel rods were fully exposed for about 140 minutes in the evening as a fire pump to pour cooling seawater into the reactor ran out of fuel and it took time for workers to release steam from the reactor to lower its pressure, the government's nuclear safety agency said.

Water levels in the No. 2 reactor later went up to cover more than half of the rods that measure about 4 meters at one point. TEPCO began pouring coolant water into the reactor after the cooling functions failed earlier in the day.

Prior to the second full exposure of the rods around 11 p.m., radiation was detected at 9:37 p.m. at a level twice the maximum seen so far -- 3,130 micro sievert per hour, according to TEPCO."

So all of this took place after the most-recent official English-language update at the TEPCO site, which was posted at 8p yesterday. The Kyodo report implies the press conference took place after 11pm.
posted by mwhybark at 12:54 PM on March 14, 2011

I think there is some potential for geothermal energy to replace much of the world's current energy needs but the cost per megawatt is largely uncompetitive outside of some isolated locations (Iceland, parts of the US, etc). The Japanese islands with their close proximity to a ton of geothermal activity seems like it would be an ideal place to invest in geothermal plants but I guess there have been compelling reasons why they haven't.

After the 7.2 Mexicali earthquake last year some people were concerned that geothermal power stations may cause (or exacerbate) earthquakes. Granted, radiation won't leak from a geothermal plant that causes an earthquake, but there's plenty-o-damage that could result.
posted by birdherder at 12:54 PM on March 14, 2011

“That would be like Chernobyl on steroids,” said Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer at Fairewinds Associates and a member of the public oversight panel for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which is identical to the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1.

I'm getting kind of confused. Initially, a whole bunch of people who seemed to know what they were talking about were saying emphatically there was no way this could possibly result in a problem on the scale of Chernobyl, but more recently, I've been seeing several reports and articles from other experts (at least, judging from their reported qualifications) saying that, in fact, we might be looking at a situation far worse than Chernobyl.

WTF?
posted by saulgoodman at 12:56 PM on March 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

I have a question about the control rods - does gravity hold them in place, or are they locked in? Would high pressure under the core, or the core being flipped, cause them to retract?

IIRC, @arclight said that the rods in these reactors are inserted from the bottom. The idea is that a meltdown would seal the (designed for just such an emergency) insertion points (and it frees up the top for steam/power collection.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:57 PM on March 14, 2011

But are we anywhere close to being able to deploy commercial scale solar arrays in space that can beam energy back to distribution centers on the ground via micromave bursts ob1quixote?

It's 1970's technology. All we're missing is a fleet of Saturn V's with the uprated engines to lift all the hardware and construction crews...

Notice that I said Construction Crews. We do not lift the satellites already built, but assemble them in-situ...
posted by mikelieman at 12:59 PM on March 14, 2011

I think even if the control rods completely failed the boron would prevent a critical reaction. Not quite clear on that, but that's what I seemed to get from arclight.
posted by polyhedron at 1:00 PM on March 14, 2011

Thanks for the info on the control rods. Yes, @arclight said (and was quoted above) that the control rods are inserted from underneath and lock in place.
posted by zippy at 1:00 PM on March 14, 2011

Jesus Christ, CBC Radio One announcer lady, do not use "the fallout from the Japanese incident" is spreading as a cute analogy for the policy impact across the world. I am trying to get some work done today and dislike having my attention caught by cutesy phrasing that implies actual scientific concern.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 1:02 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

So what does happen if the rods melt into a nice radioactive puddle of slag and eat through the containment vessel? I assume it'll catch fire if hot enough, which would presumably put some toxic and radioactive metal oxides up into the air. But how much? How exactly do we get from nasty superheated radioactive puddle under the reactor to high levels of radioactivity everywhere?
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:05 PM on March 14, 2011

Groundwater contamination.
posted by Windopaene at 1:06 PM on March 14, 2011

@fairytale -- yeah, that's about as bad as the anchor announcing gleefully that "Tweets are flooding in" to the CNN newsroom on Saturday. /facepalm
posted by Celsius1414 at 1:06 PM on March 14, 2011

And groundwater contaminants will move horizontally along whatever rock layer lies above the lower non-porus layers.
posted by Windopaene at 1:07 PM on March 14, 2011

Sorry. The CBC has more and more completely clueless people working for it. I flick the radio on and off throughout the work day just to avoid leaving a permanent imprint of my face in my keyboard.
posted by maudlin at 1:07 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

a whole bunch of people who seemed to know what they were talking about were saying emphatically there was no way this could possibly result in a problem on the scale of Chernobyl

Agreed, and it's very similar in that way to Katrina and the BP Gulf oil spill: the narrative begins by experts calmly assuring the public that the situation is under control, and then begins to turn as it becomes obvious how grave the situation really is.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 1:08 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

Not even so much groundwater contamination as an explosion if molten core comes in contact with significant amount of water under ground. That's what they were afraid of at Chernobyl, and were able to prevent by using mining equipment to cool the ground under the reactor using, iirc, liquid nitrogen.
posted by rainy at 1:08 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

The factually informative parts of this discussion are great, but the rhetorical policing is not. Yeah, people have said some scientifically illiterate stuff here, but non-nuclear-engineers still have completely legitimate concerns about some of the possible outcomes of these plant disasters, and it strikes me as a very thoughtless form of defensiveness for even the most ardent nuclear power advocate to take TEPCO's side in minimizing the long list of failures in disaster planning and response, or the potential risks, here.

it's a bit dishonest to talk about accidents which could render a city uninhabitable for thousands of years. That's unlikely to happen, and to suggest it at this time is just fear-mongering.

Talking about seemingly unlikely but possible bad outcomes is not dishonest, nor is it necessarily fear-mongering. Supposing that one or more of these reactors lost containment, is it not then possible that the surrounding area would be rendered uninhabitable for a long time? If so, since every available source seems to suggest that a loss of containment is possible, this is far from an illegitimate concern.

You can argue that they didn't design for a severe enough earthquake or a large enough tsunami, but they clearly were designed for severe earthquakes and tsunamis.

I'm not clear why this sentence begins "You can argue..." rather than "Obviously."

On preview:

it's very similar in that way to Katrina and the BP Gulf oil spill

Exactly. The post-hoc "no one could have known"/"engineers did their best" justification is already in full spin, here as elsewhere in the media. It baffles me that engineers aren't the first in line to condemn this line of thinking.
posted by RogerB at 1:10 PM on March 14, 2011 [6 favorites]

I noticed an anomaly in TEPCO's radiation measurements.

There's a trend where the readings spike higher and higher:

午後9時25分 正門 6.8μSv/h 
午後9時30分 正門 29.7μSv/h
午後9時35分 正門 760.0μSv/h
午後9時37分 正門 3130.0μSv/h

and then they stop measuring until 10:15

午前10時15分 正門 431.7μSv/h

The unusual 9:37 timestamp on the high mark suggest that they are reporting the peak from a continuous recording, rather than the normal 10 minute interval, but the lack of measurements after suggests that we may not see a potential later peak of this event.
posted by zippy at 1:11 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Ah yes, that too. I was thinking more long-term and relatively localized, not into the atmosphere.
posted by Windopaene at 1:11 PM on March 14, 2011

I really don't want to start a derail about space-based solar power, but the short answer is that like most things involving technology, yes, we really can do this, all it would take is time and money. And by yes, I mean yes, as in PG&E signed a deal in 2009 to purchase 200 megawatts of electricity from a startup company that plans to beam the power down to Earth from outer space, beginning in 2016.
posted by ob1quixote at 1:15 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think everyone acknowledges that the situation at hand is extremely serious but I have yet to see anything remotely credible that suggests that a Chernobyl style event is even possible.

The differences in design between these BWR reactors and the Soviet era RBMKs is massive. There is no graphite moderator to burn, there is a complete containment housing for the reactor.

Even in the case of complete meltdown of the reactor core that penetrates containment I don't think there is any possibility of widespread dispersal of radioactive particles in lethal dosages. Especially not to a level that would impact the Western United States.

Is this event significant? Of course, but there is no indications that the surrounding area has received the type of exposure to radioactive materials anywhere close to what was seen in Chernobyl. Maybe the plant operators are lying to us but I don't think we are seeing anything resembling a level 7 incident currently.
posted by vuron at 1:16 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

non-nuclear-engineers still have completely legitimate concerns about some of the possible outcomes of these plant disasters

I agree, and I chalk this up to a tendency among mefites to sometimes be too in awe of technical jargon and expertise; as a longtime lurker I saw this same tendency in threads dealing with the global financial collapse.

On the one hand I am glad that we are able to have some technical expertise injected into the discussion, but on the other hand even a cursory glance at the breaking headlines about this story suggest a situation that is not nearly as in control as we have been led over the past 24 hours to believe.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 1:17 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

zippy: "午後9時37分正門 3130.0μSv/h"
... The unusual 9:37 timestamp on the high mark suggest that they are reporting the peak from a continuous recording, rather than the normal 10 minute interval, but the lack of measurements after suggests that we may not see a potential later peak of this event."

That looks like the first full exposure event, trying to correlate with my Kyodo citation above.

Does that PDF include readings after 11p?
posted by mwhybark at 1:19 PM on March 14, 2011

It kind of bugs me there are some here cheering on the potential disaster to reinforce their prejudices. No one benefits from FUD.
posted by maxwelton at 1:20 PM on March 14, 2011

Using "A cursory glance at the breaking headlines" to base your reaction upon is one of the major failings I see in today's society.
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:20 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

maudlin, what's the context for your comment re: the CBC? Is it inaccurate scientifically? Overly simplistic? Something else?

posted by rmm at 1:21 PM on March 14, 2011

The most recent PDF ends at 10:35. First measurement column is gamma, second is neutrons.

午前10時35分 正門 326.2μSv/h 0.001μSv/h未満

posted by zippy at 1:21 PM on March 14, 2011

total sidebar, but I am starting to be able to read around sidebars and derails in this thread, like, I hardly see 'em any more. I think I've grown a new internet skill.
posted by mwhybark at 1:22 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

but I have yet to see anything remotely credible that suggests that a Chernobyl style event is even possible

Okay, now check out this quote from earlier in the thread:

Tokyo Electric said it was trying to figure out how to maintain water levels in the pools, indicating that the normal safety systems there had failed, too. Failure to keep adequate water levels in a pool would lead to a catastrophic fire, said nuclear experts, some of whom think that Unit 1’s pool might now be outside.

“That would be like Chernobyl on steroids,” said Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer at Fairewinds Associates and a member of the public oversight panel for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which is identical to the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1.

Why is this nuclear engineer not remotely credible? Or what am I missing here that makes what you are saying true.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:23 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Shoot, so we're still waiting for good primary source data. To be expected, I suppose.
posted by mwhybark at 1:23 PM on March 14, 2011

even a cursory glance at the breaking headlines about this story suggest a situation that is not nearly as in control as we have been led over the past 24 hours to believe.

Things are clearly not "in control", and I don't think anyone has suggested they are. I'll be biting my nails all week until the decay heat drops low enough that they won't have to pump water in anymore.
posted by Popular Ethics at 1:25 PM on March 14, 2011

cheering on the potential disaster to reinforce their prejudices.

Do you have some specific comments in mind?

Fwiw, I'm certainly not cheering on disaster, and I have yet to make a single comment anywhere on metafilter about my views on nuclear power (I don't really have a strong position either way, and I'm not sure using this tragic story as a springboard for that discussion is such a good idea anyway).
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 1:26 PM on March 14, 2011

It looks like the Arnie Gundersen referenced above may not be that reliable a source:

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2011/02/arnie-gundersen-has-inflated-his-resume.html

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/02/is-arnie-gundersen-devious-or-dumb-or.html

Although presumably atomicinsights.blogspot has their own bias.
posted by titus-g at 1:29 PM on March 14, 2011

saulgoodman: that quote implies that TEPCO is storing lots of spent fuel rods in these pools for long periods, zippy pointed out that Japan reprocesses its fuel, and that @arclight stated those pools are only used for temporary loading and unloading of fuel.
posted by Mach5 at 1:29 PM on March 14, 2011

Using "A cursory glance at the breaking headlines" to base your reaction upon is one of the major failings I see in today's society.

As a sociological insight I happen to agree with you, but to be clear I was referring to the general reactive and otiose defensiveness against perceived fear-mongering: i.e. the tendency to diminish anything other than reassuring commentary.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 1:32 PM on March 14, 2011

So what does happen if the rods melt into a nice radioactive puddle of slag and eat through the containment vessel?

If it somehow manages to go through the two layers of thick steel even after cooling as much as it will have by now, which it won't, it'll be stopped by the concrete beneath. If that doesn't stop it, then it will probably go on to destroy the whole world I guess.

The spent fuel pool thing sounds considerably more alarming. Someone probably ought to try and get the real story on that... "Over some time, if the spent fuel, if the water is drained, especially in a way where the fuel is exposed to open air, this still take a considerable amount of time, but the risk of a Zirconium fire arises and then you have a very large release particularly of Cesium 137."

Considerable time? Like, days? hours? months? Give us a clue, reporters.

Why is this nuclear engineer not remotely credible?

Because he said "Chernobyl on steroids" instead of something sensible.
posted by sfenders at 1:33 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

I don't know. Clearly it would have benefited us all as well as the engineers, owners and managers of the Fukushima plant to have been more fearful, uncertain and doubtful of their design's ability to withstand a natural disaster like this.

How much more, exactly?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:35 PM on March 14, 2011

If that doesn't stop it, then it will probably go on to destroy the whole world I guess.

Black humor aside, I think the previous thread had some commentary to the effect of "if it hit the Earth's mantle, it would be rendered harmless," which the Wikipedia article on the China Syndrome appears to support.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 1:36 PM on March 14, 2011

See now, personal attacks on this level kind of make the guy seem more not less credible ... Especially when presented by an anonymous atomic energy advocacy blog.

Thank you Mach5: That's a bit more along the lines of the kind of response I was looking for and also reassuring.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:36 PM on March 14, 2011

Failure to keep adequate water levels in a pool would lead to a catastrophic fire, said nuclear experts, some of whom think that Unit 1’s pool might now be outside.

I'm worried about that too, but the operators should have much longer to worry about it than they do with the reactor unless the pool leaks. I'm assuming that no news is good news.
posted by Popular Ethics at 1:36 PM on March 14, 2011

I'm wondering why it's only just now that Japan is asking for supplies from the US to help in dealing with the situation. This should have happened much sooner. Whether it was pride or over-confidence, I hope we see some international rules set in place at the UN or elsewhere that mandate cooperation in future nuclear incidents. We've got experts, supplies and resources throughout the world, it only makes sense to use them. Coordination and organization of the situation is complicated, but the human and physical resources are just sitting there, and I'd rather see more eyes on the situation. Especially if those eyes don't have a PR stake.
posted by formless at 1:37 PM on March 14, 2011

"Why is this nuclear engineer not remotely credible?"

He is. And so are other engineers disagreeing with him.

No one knows. Even experts. There is plenty of room for people on both sides to be both right and wrong. We're talking about a lot of things here. And the context of the discussion is all over the map at this point.

And what does "Chernobyl on steroids" even mean? If the discussion is a pragmatic and intelligent appraisal of the danger here, that statement seems more likely to get one's name in print rather provide anything useful at all.

I just love it when people expect every single "credible expert" to agree 100% on the theoretical outcome of things no one has seen before.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:37 PM on March 14, 2011

then it will probably go on to destroy the whole world I guess.

Ha. Anyway, isn't a bigger fear from a melting core breaking containment the possibility that it might hit water and cause a steam explosion that sends radioactive material into the environment?
posted by mediareport at 1:39 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'm wondering why it's only just now that Japan is asking for supplies from the US to help in dealing with the situation.

It was my understanding that Sec. of State Clinton mentioned the US sending some assistance to the Nuclear site just a few hours after the Tsunami.
posted by anastasiav at 1:39 PM on March 14, 2011

I'm wondering why it's only just now that Japan is asking for supplies from the US to help in dealing with the situation. This should have happened much sooner.

That went out yesterday, IIRC. (Possibly earlier?)

For perspective, the US refused all offered aid for Katrina. Because we clearly had the situation under control.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:43 PM on March 14, 2011

And what does "Chernobyl on steroids" even mean?

If I remember Rocky IV correctly, Chernobyl probably was already on steroids.
posted by formless at 1:43 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

See now, personal attacks on this level kind of make the guy seem more not less credible ... Especially when presented by an anonymous atomic energy advocacy blog.

That blog is clearly not anonymous, the name of the writer is easily found at first glance. And if pointing out that someone who claims to be an expert has padded his resume increases that supposed expert's credibility I don't know how you are supposed to weed out the experts from the pretenders.
posted by Authorized User at 1:46 PM on March 14, 2011

sfenders: if the spent fuel, if the water is drained, especially in a way where the fuel is exposed to open air, this still take a considerable amount of time, but the risk of a Zirconium fire arises and then you have a very large release particularly of Cesium 137."
Considerable time? Like, days? hours? months? Give us a clue, reporters.

This analysis suggest a minimum of 6 days to boil off the spent fuel pool at a BWR, longer if the pool has a lower inventory or the fuel inside is older. They are careful to point out how sensitive the number is to plant-specific configurations.
posted by Popular Ethics at 1:48 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Here's a top-down photo of the Fukushima plant, taken after the explosion at reactor #3. It looks like it suffered considerably more damage that reactor #1, which is on the left in the photo. And given the recent news about its cooling system failure, subsequent seawater flooding, and stuck-vent issues, how long until reactor #2 has its own hydrogen explosion?
posted by Asparagirl at 1:48 PM on March 14, 2011

Ahh, I see that the call for additional equipment was sent out yesterday (Sunday), my bad.

For perspective, the US refused all offered aid for Katrina. Because we clearly had the situation under control.

I know, it's shameful, and as others have pointed out, probably coloring skepticism of the reports about this incident. It looks like help was offered and accepted much sooner in this case.
posted by formless at 1:50 PM on March 14, 2011

maudlin, what's the context for your comment re: the CBC? Is it inaccurate scientifically? Overly simplistic? Something else?

Dedicated science, nature and current affairs shows are still often very good sources of information. But a lot of the let's fill-in-the-gap content from professional announcers with no expertise -- noon and drive time radio shows, the repeated news bits on CBC News Network -- are often shallow, offensive and aggravating as they strive to stay current and avoid dead air even when they haven't had time to evaluate the information flowing in.

Case in point: earlier this hour, the new drive time host on CBC Radio 1 in Toronto was interviewing a Canadian with some Japanese connections about the people he had worked with over there who had lost homes. But she then broke in to ask "But aren't you really worried about a potential meltdown?" and tried to get this nice man, with no particular expertise in this area, to talk about that. I've seen and heard some compelling human interest stories over the past couple of days from people with real experiences to recount. I remember seeing one man who worked at one of the plants describe how they had left just before the tsunami, and that he was heartbroken to see that his neighbourhood -- the noodle house he'd gone to for lunch every day for months -- had been wiped off the earth. I can see asking people to share their experiences. But poking people into sharing their fears, when they may have very little useful knowledge to assess the situation, is pointless.
posted by maudlin at 1:53 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Agreed, and it's very similar in that way to Katrina and the BP Gulf oil spill: the narrative begins by experts calmly assuring the public that the situation is under control, and then begins to turn as it becomes obvious how grave the situation really is.

And just like in both Katrina and Deepwater there were thousands of commentators (and major media news agencies) announcing as fact things like dead bodies in piles on street corners, rapes by the hundreds and cracks in the seabed with millions of gallons of oil leaking. They were just as wrong.
posted by Skorgu at 1:54 PM on March 14, 2011

Because he said "Chernobyl on steroids" instead of something sensible.

Engineers who say this is nothing at all like Chernobyl and never could be, because their heads are full of all the specific technical differences between those circumstances and this one don't exactly come across as sensible to many in the general public either (no matter how much they might technically be right), since to most of us it seems pretty obvious that even if there are big differences in the specific types of failures and the degree of failure, these events are definitely related to a major problem with public health and environmental implications at a major nuclear power plant (which is really only about as far as the kinds of analogies non-technical folk mean to make with such comparisons really go).

"What do you mean it's nothing like Chernobyl? That was an accident at a nuclear power plant, this is an accident at a nuclear power plant."

The over-eager categorical dismissal of the analogy makes people suspicious (tending to give rise to thoughts like "Why are all these PR flaks and industry people trying so hard to keep me from associating this incident with Chernobyl? OMG! Cover-up!", because in all the ways that are relevant to non-technical people, the analogy seems basically valid in kind if not degree.

Either way, I don't mean to endorse the professional opinion that this could be 'Chernobyl on steroids' at all; I'm just curious about what's changed, and what it might mean, because it does seem I've come across a few of these articles more recently suggesting there are credible experts acknowledging the situation might be worse than initially thought possible. If it's possible to do that without a reactionary bias as well as without a fear-mongering bias that would be awesome.

That blog is clearly not anonymous,

Oops--sorry about that. 100% correct. Not anonymous, just shady looking.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:55 PM on March 14, 2011 [6 favorites]

Do we even have confirmation that there is a problem with the spent fuel cooling pools? Or how much spent fuel is contained therein? Furthermore exactly what scenario is he talking about, that the spent fuel pool might empty, that the exposed fuel rods might catch fire, and thereby release a huge amount of radioactive waste directly into the atmosphere? Or is he talking the spent fuel rods melting and somehow forming a critical mass in the bottom of the empty pool?

He could be completely credible as a resource but be talking about a scenario that isn't currently possible given the variables present at the plant. I'm just not certain we have enough context or direct first hand data to support the doomsday scenarios that seem to be shooting around the internet. Unless the spent fuel cooling pools are in critical conditions currently (which there seems to be no evidence of) it seems like the plant operators should focus on the current emergency rather than hypothetical emergencies.
posted by vuron at 1:56 PM on March 14, 2011

Nuclear engineers probably get touchy about Chernobyl because Chernobyl was a really dumb situation and they like to believe they've planned a bit better than that. Just speculation (something there's a little too much of, though I would like to better understand exactly what the realistic progression is).
posted by polyhedron at 1:58 PM on March 14, 2011

saulgoodman: In particular it seems a bit off when people say that a chernobyl-style scenario is impossible. We're not talking about shoe fashions. I would feel much better if they would quantify that somehow, e.g. released radioactivity will not be more than 5% of what was released at Chernobyl, or slap some figure on it. Talk of "style" doesn't give us much.
posted by rainy at 1:59 PM on March 14, 2011

For what it's worth I have heard ZERO from Japanese news sources about spent fuel rods at the Fukushima plant. (And I have been searching all around for any confirmation that this is a concern).

There is a different plant that had some overflow of irradiated water from a spent fuel pool, but they said it wasn't enough to cause environmental effects.
posted by Jeanne at 2:01 PM on March 14, 2011

I remember reading in the past 24 hours or so (but I do not have a cite at the moment, sorry) that reactor #3 only loaded its fuel in September 2010, and therefore it probably does not have anything in its spent fuel pool yet because it was so recent. The reason it was loaded so late is that reactor #3 uses MOX (i.e. plutonium), unlike the fuel used in reactors #1 and #2, and civilian protests had held up the loading. Confirmation help on this issue would be appreciated.

So that's reactor #3, but this still leaves the issue of what, if anything, was in the cooling pools / spent fuel pools for reactors #1 and #2.
posted by Asparagirl at 2:02 PM on March 14, 2011

SaulG: I did point out that the blog in question was biased, but it does contain verifiable information that does provide evidence that the guy has a definite axe to grind against the nuclear industry and, in fact, appears to make his living grinding said axe as part of the husband and wife team Fairwinds associates.

This isn't to dispute his credentials as a nuclear engineer, but merely to point out that hyperbolic phrases such as 'Chernobyl on steroids' might come more from his role as an anti-nuke advocate, rather than his past relation with the neutrons in question.

For what it's worth I am somewhere between anti-nuclear and nuclear-accepting (because while I would prefer alternative tech with its massive added advantage that a lot of it is devolutionary and allows individuals and communities to provide for their own energy requirement rather than sucking on the bloated and pustulent teat of the power corporatocracy... while all of that, at least nuclear is far less likely to destroy the global ecosystem than fossil fuels, and it more ready now to fulfil the role).

But, I do care more about the facts than my own prejudices, and unless I've really misunderstood something that Chernobyl line is major league FUD, which helps no one.

This also reminds my why I don't post comments on the internets any more, people keep basing their responses on what I write, not what I meant: in my head; like.
posted by titus-g at 2:04 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

And just like in both Katrina and Deepwater there were thousands of commentators (and major media news agencies) announcing as fact things like dead bodies in piles on street corners, rapes by the hundreds and cracks in the seabed with millions of gallons of oil leaking. They were just as wrong.

I'm not even going to touch this one. We were all here. These blatantly counterfactual claims do not lend your comments much credibility.

saulgoodman: In particular it seems a bit off when people say that a chernobyl-style scenario is impossible. We're not talking about shoe fashions. I would feel much better if they would quantify that somehow, e.g. released radioactivity will not be more than 5% of what was released at Chernobyl, or slap some figure on it. Talk of "style" doesn't give us much.

Rainy: I can understand, but you're thinking like an engineer. Non-techies, I think, just mean "A great big messy disaster that kills people and does lots of long-term environmental harm."
posted by saulgoodman at 2:04 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Were I a Japanese nuke engineer, I'd be incredibly offended at any implication that my reactor sucked as badly as an RBMK and that the culture of safety at my office was as cavalier and unthinking as the Chernobyl-era Soviet one was. You can grab and read INSAG-7, the 1993 report from IAEA on Chernobyl, to grasp the differences, if you're a wonk.

(The money shot in INSAG-7 is on page 22 section 5.8: "In reviewing information made available since the Post-Accident Review Meeting, INSAG judges that factors leading to the accident are to be found in the safety features of the design, the actions of the operators, and the general safety and
regulatory framework." That pretty much reads to me as "Yeah, you know, everything here was for fuck.")

Most reporters are not wonks on that level, though, and when people think "nuke accident" in the West, they think "Chernobyl" first, "Three Mile Island" second, and atomic weaponry third.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 2:05 PM on March 14, 2011 [6 favorites]

NHK World is doing a nice documentary style overview of the nuclear situation, complete with animations of the reactor. It's on now and presumably will replay around 2:30 as they usually do. Very useful if you're looking to catch up a bit.
posted by zachlipton at 2:07 PM on March 14, 2011

The Chernobyl-comparisons are a bit of a red herring, and also irrelevant. Indeed, Chernobyl was relatively isolated geographically, but Japan is of course among the most densely populated countries in the world. But Japan also survived two nuclear bombs, among other things, as has been noted.

IAEA said over the weekend that Japan had "distributed 230,000 units of stable iodine to evacuation centres" near the Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini nuclear power plants.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 2:08 PM on March 14, 2011

Why Daini, too, - just because they detected a bit of radiation that drifted from Daiichi or they have something to worry about at Daini?
posted by rainy at 2:12 PM on March 14, 2011

Reputable confirmation of a failure to cool unit 2. Bad news.
posted by Popular Ethics at 2:12 PM on March 14, 2011

Fukushima Daini status as of 8am Japanese time March 14th.

Answer: Problems at Daini were less severe overall that we know of, but still worrisome enough to require 10km evacuation radius and distribution of iodine just in case.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 2:13 PM on March 14, 2011

I'm just curious about what's changed, and what it might mean

Here's my layperson's summary¹

Imagine if you wanted to build a reactor and, looking for a container, you used your backyard swimming pool. You put the nuclear material in, some other material burns if exposed, and cover the pool patio bricks and then a steel lid, bolted down.

Finally, you create the system with a flaw² that makes plant operators so nervous, that they start to experiment with the reactor to see if they can work around the flaw. On the night of the (disastrous) experiment, you then ad-lib by removing all the control rods out in order to generate enough power for your experiment.

Your back-yard swimming pool then explodes from steam and possibly hydrogen, violently ejecting the flammable and radioactive contents³ and causing a fire that spreads radioactive debris to neighboring countries.

[1] Written by a lay-person, me.

[2] Chernobyl depended on generators to keep water moving during reactor shut down, however, the generators took a long time (around a minute) to come on line in tests. This was too long for safe operation of the reactor, so operators decided to run controlled experiments to see if they could power the pumps from the reactor as it shut down while the generators were spinning up.

[3] IIRC several percent of the reactor fuel was ejected from Chernobyl, some of it aerosolized.
posted by zippy at 2:16 PM on March 14, 2011

Plus -- pretty much everything within 10 km of Daini is also within 20 km of Daiichi (map), so anyone close to Daini is close enough to Daiichi to be concerned.
posted by Jeanne at 2:17 PM on March 14, 2011

i hope the US/et al nuclear engineers get there ASAP to help out, if only to give these guys a break. i cant imagine the plant operators there have gotten any sleep since the disaster. they've been making extremely technical decisions trying to get a hold of this, while under constant worry of/for: a meltdown of three separate reactors, contamination of possibly their hometown or at least where their family lives, their potential relatives in the north, even another larger aftershock with another potential tsunami. this all while possibly being exposed to radiation, and getting bandied about by aftershocks every 30ish minutes that would make me pee myself, and all THIS under the weight of the watching world, who is judging every single piece of information they release. i cannot begin to imagine that stress added on to lack of sleep. i feel for them, and in my imaginary world i will buy a beer for them, while dressed in my best lead suit.
posted by Mach5 at 2:19 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'm not even going to touch this one. We were all here. These blatantly counterfactual claims do not lend your comments much credibility.

What? There were plenty of sources about the alleged sea floor cracks: one, two, an ask mefi for 3, and a cited comment in a mefi thread for four.

There were plenty of people making doomsday claims at the time, just like there are in every disaster. I wouldn't have thought this was a particularly controversial point and I'm pretty surprised at your reply.
posted by Skorgu at 2:22 PM on March 14, 2011

if it's not clear in my previous comment, I'm describing Chernobyl's reactor design.
posted by zippy at 2:22 PM on March 14, 2011

And just like in both Katrina and Deepwater there were thousands of commentators (and major media news agencies) announcing as fact things like dead bodies in piles on street corners, rapes by the hundreds and cracks in the seabed with millions of gallons of oil leaking. They were just as wrong.

Really? Certainly there have been folks spreading fear and doom when the facts didn't back that up, but there were dead bodies in the streets after Katrina and rescuers were marking houses with the number of bodies found inside. Anderson Cooper saw a body in the street being eaten by rats. Many of the rape and murder rumors were exaggerations (helped by the fact that they were repeated by government officials), but numerous women have reported being raped after the storm With Deepwater, the leak estimates are around 206 million gallons of oil (per Wikipedia). That is, literally, millions of gallons of oil. There were credible fears that the seabed could have been cracked or that this was imminent. These were the reports of experts in deepwater drilling as repeated efforts to seal the well failed. Fortunately, that didn't turn out to be the case, but I don't see where anyone has discredited that reasonable fear.

Sometimes disasters are simply disastrous. We're not hoping for the worst, but that doesn't mean you have to assume everything is just peachy for some reason.
posted by zachlipton at 2:29 PM on March 14, 2011

My personal adverse reaction to "Chernobyl on steroids" has nothing to do with Chernobyl. I'd react in the same way if he said "hurricane Katrina times a million!"

Do we even have confirmation that there is a problem with the spent fuel cooling pools?

Not that I've heard, but probably the water circulation to them is out. Sounds like all they need to do is find a way to top up the pool with water once every couple of days or so, which shouldn't be all that much of a challenge compared to the other things they're doing, if sea water is good enough. It's certainly good enough to stop it catching on fire, at least. So the chance of that particular "great big messy disaster that kills people and does lots of long-term environmental harm" does seem fairly remote. It does add to the risk.
posted by sfenders at 2:29 PM on March 14, 2011

Zippy: you forgot to mention: Before running the 'maybe-this-isn't-a-good-idea' test, you take part of the steel roof off the building for maintenance. Yep.
posted by RolandOfEld at 2:30 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

zachlipton, that's exactly my point! Of course there were rapes and dead bodies and oil leaking but many of the worst claims being made at the time ended up being factually not true. Even though they were reported by reasonably respectable sources at the time.

I don't think anyone in the world is claiming things are peachy in these reactors right now, certainly the Japanese government isn't (multiple declared emergencies and tens of kilometers of mandatory evacuations for example), nobody here has said that this is definitely a done deal that I'm aware of and I'm certainly not.
posted by Skorgu at 2:32 PM on March 14, 2011

Good news, everyone!* Cold shutdowns at Fukushima Daini

*/Futurama
posted by warbaby at 2:35 PM on March 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

Citation for my previous remarks zippy, not that you doubted:

Old RBMK designs, however, did not use containments, which was one of many technical oversights of the Soviet Union that contributed to the Chernobyl accident in 1986.
posted by RolandOfEld at 2:38 PM on March 14, 2011

Skorgu: so what is your point then exactly? My point is that people mostly got it right. Every story is going to have some people screaming panic and some insisting that everything is fine, but if you take a reasonable middle path, you pretty much get a good picture of what's going on. I think that's exactly what we've been doing in this thread: going beyond "OMG Chernobyl on steroids" and the American Nuclear Society's overly reassuring backgrounder to do our best from limited information, much of it in a foreign language, to tease out what's really happening.
posted by zachlipton at 2:43 PM on March 14, 2011

To my layman’s eye this looks like a pretty good analysis of the spent fuel pool situation. (PDF file from Institute For Energy And Environmental Research)
posted by Huplescat at 2:44 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

yay!
posted by angrycat at 2:44 PM on March 14, 2011

Good news indeed.
posted by zippy at 2:46 PM on March 14, 2011

I may regret this, but I've scraped the Fukushima main gate radiation data from TEPCO and thrown it into an Excel file. Have a look (for a few days).

The graph shows four spikes - anyone want to identify them?
posted by anthill at 2:47 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

That last is a big spike.
posted by Windopaene at 2:49 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Has anyone listened to the entire IAEA Press Conference from earlier today yet? I'm 20 minutes in and wondering if I'm wasting my time listening to another half-hour of world-class bureaucratic prevarication.
posted by ob1quixote at 2:49 PM on March 14, 2011

Edano has reported on NHK that there is something wrong with the suppression pool in reactor 2.
posted by Jeanne at 2:52 PM on March 14, 2011

2 down 1 to go at Daini.

But hasn't that pretty much been the case all along? Only one was having issues at Daini? Is that one still having problems? We haven't heard much about what's going on there, if anything.
posted by Windopaene at 2:53 PM on March 14, 2011

Although, having just posted that, the Director General of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, answered a direct question about Could this be another Chernobyl with a direct answer (paraphrasing) Not in my judgement.
posted by ob1quixote at 2:54 PM on March 14, 2011

Suppression pool is part of the primary containment system, from what I found.
posted by Windopaene at 2:55 PM on March 14, 2011

Every story is going to have some people screaming panic and some insisting that everything is fine, but if you take a reasonable middle path, you pretty much get a good picture of what's going on.

I agree. I mean again I don't think anyone anywhere is saying anything that could even roughly be paraphrased as 'everything is fine' but in general yes, there's the best case and the worst case and the best guess is somewhere between them, always remembering that it's still a guess.
posted by Skorgu at 2:56 PM on March 14, 2011

From Le Monde's liveblog, 20 minutes ago, in rough translation:

22:35 CET: According to the press agency Kyodo, the cooling process of Dai-Ichi reactor no. 2 at Fukushima, which resumed Tuesday morning (Japan time), doesn't seem to work. TEPCO hasn't succeeded in maintaining a water level sufficient for cooling the fuel rods which are again in open air. The situation is very unstable.
posted by neal at 2:58 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

keep in mind that spike in the radiation graph (~3 mSv) is a little more than what any human on earth gets in a year just with cosmic rays and the like (2.4 mSv). one chest CT scan is a 5 mSv dose.
posted by Mach5 at 3:02 PM on March 14, 2011

The change in magnitude is what is disturbing.
posted by Windopaene at 3:05 PM on March 14, 2011

ob1quixote: "Although, having just posted that, the Director General of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano"

My father-in-law's best friend works for the IAEA as an inspector. I've been trying to get ahold of him for the past few days, but the f-i-l says he was "flown out of (Europe) on short notice Friday evening". Mysterious!
posted by boo_radley at 3:05 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Mach5 - sorry, I should have noted that better - the graph is of radiation rate, in µSv / hour (micro- not milli-). You would have to integrate under the graph to get the cumulative dose. My rough estimate of the total dose since the 12th March at the front gate is 2880 µSv = 2.9 mSv = about a year's worth.

However, there's a lot of missing data around that 3rd spike!!!
posted by anthill at 3:06 PM on March 14, 2011

From NHK World just now: Daiichi #2 reactor - water injection resumed at 1am but water level still hasn't risen. PM Kan looks absolutely terrible, setting up "joint task force."
posted by zachlipton at 3:06 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

wait I thought everything was calming down. things are still FUBAR?
posted by angrycat at 3:08 PM on March 14, 2011

I don't think this has been seen before: Integrity Inspection of Dry Storage Casks and Spent Fuels at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station by Yumiko Kumano, Tokyo Electric Power Company, 16 November 2010. If it has, my apologies.
posted by scalefree at 3:09 PM on March 14, 2011

I am probably confused.
posted by angrycat at 3:10 PM on March 14, 2011

angrycat, I think you are confusing Daiichi and Daini
posted by polyhedron at 3:11 PM on March 14, 2011

From this report, Post-Tsunami Situation at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
in Japan: Facts, Analysis, and Some Potential Outcomes, IEER, it sounds like a lack of water to the spent fuel pools was a major problem.

"The spent fuel pools at the Daiichi reactors contain approximately these amounts: Unit 1, 50 metric tons; Unit 2, 81 metric tons; and Unit 3, 88 metric tons."

According to the linked report, without cooling, these pools are all able to burn and produce hydrogen. There is the possibility that when Fukushima-1 Unit 1's containment building blew its top, that the pool on top took damage and that cooling was impaired. There is much guesswork in the report that the fuel cooling pools were a large problem and were one reason, if not the primary one, for pumping emergency seawater and boron in.
posted by zippy at 3:11 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

Rough summary of what I'm hearing on NHK:

The suppression pool is what's at the bottom of the reactor that holds several tons of water to cool the steam and turn it back into water. They're worried that there might be a hole or a crack in the suppression pool, and water may have leaked out. They're not worried about groundwater contamination at this stage -- I guess that the water is no more radioactive than the steam they've already been venting? They're worried about the impact on the ability to cool down the reactor.

I wonder if this may be related to the sudden drop in the water level at reactor 2.
posted by Jeanne at 3:12 PM on March 14, 2011

angrycat: What we've got is a really suboptimal situation at Fukushima Daiichi (Fukushima-1), a 4.7MW power plant with six units, three of which are compromised (Units 1-3) and three of which are down for maintenance anyhow and escaped in decent shape (Units 4-6).

Fukushima Daini is a 4.4MW power plant 10km south of Fukushima Daini. Reactors there sustained a pretty bad jolt and some damage, but they are all either in or working towards "cold shutdown," a state where the reaction has stopped and the decay heat has dissipated to safe levels. There is one more reactor to go at Fukushima Daini before it's not really noteworthy, assuming nothing goes wrong.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 3:14 PM on March 14, 2011

Beh! Second Fukushima Daini in second paragraph is, of course, "Fukushima Daiichi."
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 3:14 PM on March 14, 2011

I think you meant GW fairytale.
posted by polyhedron at 3:15 PM on March 14, 2011

Yeah, don't mind me, one of my coworkers is all "WHO THE HELL ASKED YOU WHERE THEY GET HYDROGEN AT A *NUKE PLANT* DOES NO ONE KNOW *ANYTHING*" in my ear (answer: "another coworker").

Good thing I don't work in this field!
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 3:17 PM on March 14, 2011

zipply: From this report, ..., IEER, it sounds like a lack of water to the spent fuel pools was a major problem.

Hold up. That's a report written today in Maryland, without access to any inside information, by a group that opposes nuclear power. The author is only speculating about the risk. At one point suggests that the fuel pool might need "venting", which doesn't make sense since it's open to atmosphere. Do NOT treat this report as a first-hand account.
posted by Popular Ethics at 3:17 PM on March 14, 2011

Also from NHK world: Maximum of 5.7 µSv at the other plant in Onagawa. They are saying some there was some kind of failure in the suppression pool at Daiichi #2. Radiation level not rising but this means that it is more likely to rise in the future. Questions about what this means about the integrity of the containment vessel. Edano apparently gave 2 press conferences in the past hour, a sign of seriousness in and of itself. At the #2 reaction, hydrogen being generated. They are opening a hole in the building to release hydrogen to try to avoid another explosion. NHK now saying that Tepco hasn't been efficiently communicating information to the government: hence the joint task force.

Also, The Guardian has two stories about the accuracy of official information in this situation. The first story mostly quotes anti-nuclear folks about questions about the government response. The second is a new WikiLeaks cable from 2008 which quotes a Japanese politician telling US diplomats that the Japanese nuclear regulators have been "covering up nuclear accidents and obscuring the true costs and problems associated with the nuclear industry".
posted by zachlipton at 3:18 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Here's a picture showing where the pool is. Right up top in the refueling bay.

via
posted by warbaby at 3:19 PM on March 14, 2011

In taking a second look at that report on spent fuel amounts, I have not found the sources for those figures in the relevant footnote.
posted by zippy at 3:20 PM on March 14, 2011

Are there any good twitter feeds on this, now that arclight is down?
posted by Flunkie at 3:22 PM on March 14, 2011

Hold up. That's a report written today in Maryland, without access to any inside information, by a group that opposes nuclear power.

Yes, I just noticed. I am not sure of their analysis or even their stated facts, and would love to find another source.
posted by zippy at 3:22 PM on March 14, 2011

I'm listening to that presser and keeping an eye and half an ear on the evening news programs and if I see one more Could It Happen Here?!? headline with the Reactor 3 explosion footage behind it I'm going to pop a blood vessel.
posted by ob1quixote at 3:23 PM on March 14, 2011

In taking a second look at that report on spent fuel amounts, I have not found the sources for those figures in the relevant footnote.

If you want hard numbers on spent fuel look at the report I just posted. Written by Tokyo Power, hard to get more authoritative than that.
posted by scalefree at 3:25 PM on March 14, 2011

Hold up. That's a report written today in Maryland, without access to any inside information, by a group that opposes nuclear power.

Interestingly, that criticism isn't often leveled at the Oehmen-style pro-nuclear pieces linked to in this thread as expert, first-hand knowledge.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:26 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Fun facts you can learn in a nuclear emergency: did you know there is such a thing as a Banana equivalent dose? "Bananas are radioactive enough to regularly cause false alarms on radiation sensors used to detect possible illegal smuggling of nuclear material at US ports"

Living with a picky eater three-year-old, we eat at least one banana a day at my house. So what if that's 36 μSv per year; they're so yummy!
posted by Asparagirl at 3:27 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

Le Monde again:

23:14 CET: The press agency Kyodo is quoting the government spokesman Yukio Edano: The containment vessel at Fukushima Daiichi reactor no. 2 is experiencing a "partial failure."

23:15 CET: No more details on this "failure," but Mr. Edano assures that no increase in radioactivity has been detected near the reactor.
posted by neal at 3:30 PM on March 14, 2011

On the LA Times site:

Japan-style earthquake and tsunami unlikely to hit Southern California, experts say - includes discussion of risk at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon.
posted by Celsius1414 at 3:30 PM on March 14, 2011

Oh crap not again...
posted by zachlipton at 3:31 PM on March 14, 2011

Interestingly, that criticism isn't often leveled at the Oehmen-style pro-nuclear pieces linked to in this thread as expert, first-hand knowledge.

Guy, lay off it. I'm choosing my words carefully. Consider the report for what it's worth (I share the author's concerns), but don't say the report presents any credible news. "a lack of water to the spent fuel pools was a major problem" is untrue as far as anyone knows.
posted by Popular Ethics at 3:33 PM on March 14, 2011

If you want hard numbers on spent fuel look at the report I just posted. Written by Tokyo Power ...

OK, page 4 of that PPT, Fukushima-1's six units have a total storage capacity of 2,100 tons (metric, I presume) of uranium. On Mar 2010, one year ago, they were at 84% capacity with 1760 tons.

That gives an average amount of 293 tons per unit, much higher than the per-unit numbers of the IEER report, but not necessarily in conflict.
posted by zippy at 3:36 PM on March 14, 2011

According to @hayano's twitter (He's the Japanese @arclight!), elevated levels of radiation are being detected in cities ~80 miles from the Fukushima reactors. Radiation is in the range of 3-5 microSieverts/hour, which means that an hour of exposure is about equivalent to eating a banana a day for a month... 50 times normal, but basically no health risk.
posted by Jeanne at 3:40 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

BBC's liveblog says no. 3 at 22:07 GMT then no. 2 at 22:36 GMT. Not clear whether it's a mistake by the BBC or if it's both reactors.
posted by neal at 3:40 PM on March 14, 2011

Stand by for a rush transcription of the very last question of that hour long press conference which addressed the spent fuel pools.
posted by ob1quixote at 3:40 PM on March 14, 2011

Fukushima-1's six units have a total storage capacity of 2,100 tons

If you read further down in that report, that is probably for the common storage pool, built in 1997. The storage pools in roughs of the individual reactor buildings would be different.
posted by Chuckles at 3:41 PM on March 14, 2011

roughs?!??! I mean roofs of the reactor buildings.
posted by Chuckles at 3:42 PM on March 14, 2011

WRT previous speculation about Kyodo being a little alarmist: translator coworker, when asked, says they're a bit like Reuters. NHK gets some of their news from Kyodo. He says people trust them about eighty percent of the time; the other 20% is a bit dramatic.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 3:43 PM on March 14, 2011

AFP is confirming Kyodo's account.

Le Monde at 23:46 CET: Agence France-Presse is quoting the Japanese government and confirming that part of Fukushima-1 reactor 2's containment vessel seems to have been damaged.
posted by neal at 3:49 PM on March 14, 2011

If you read further down in that report, that is probably for the common storage pool, built in 1997. The storage pools in roughs of the individual reactor buildings would be different.

They don't break it down by mass, but later, they do break down the number of spent assemblies: 3450 assemblies in storage per reactor (per reactor capacity 8310), 6291 assemblies in the common pool (cap 6840), 408 in dry casks (408 cap).

There are 52 assemblies in a large dry cask, and that cask, filled, weighs 115t, so each fuel assembly is < .2t, but I don't have better numbers.
posted by zippy at 3:50 PM on March 14, 2011

Banana equivalent dose

"Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring
banana nuclear incident alert"

really doesn't scan well.
posted by zippy at 3:53 PM on March 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

I could have a banana-contaminated milkshake right about now.
posted by rainy at 3:57 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

It seems unsettling that the chatter here has dropped after the announcement of the containment failure.

Any word on whether it was the reactor core or the concrete walls?
posted by hwyengr at 3:57 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

From the IAEA Press Conference posted 14-Mar-2011 2030 CET:

Q1: Yes. Thank you. Ralph [inaudible], die tageszeitung , Berlin. Where does Japan dispose of the nuclear waste and are there any informations about damage done to storage facilities.

A1: We do not have any information about damage to storage facilities.

Q2: Or spent fuel pools?

Q1: This means there is no information or there has no damage been caused?

A2: What we can say is, and you may have seen models of the reactor, pictures. In the building, over the reactor, you have the spent fuel pool, including in Fukushima One and Fukushima Three—Fukushima Daiichi One and Fukushima Daiichi Three, those where, there were explosions which uncovered the top of the building in which you have the reactor. So the spent fuel pool is in this building. If it had been damaged, significant release of radioactive—of radioactivity would have been seen. This is not what has been reported by the Japanese authorities. So from that we can infer that there has been no significant damage to these spent fuel pools.
posted by ob1quixote at 3:58 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

hwyengr: I think must be primary containment because secondary containment is the building that blew its roof off a while ago.
posted by rainy at 3:58 PM on March 14, 2011

Sorry it took so long. I don't have foot pedals, just alt-tab and the pause button.
posted by ob1quixote at 3:59 PM on March 14, 2011

I think they are not calling it secondary containment because "secondary containment blew up" sounds too alarmist.
posted by rainy at 3:59 PM on March 14, 2011

they do break down the number of spent assemblies: 3450

Ya, I didn't catch that line on first look. I think that is 3450 assemblies total for all six, and 3450 assemblies is about a third of the 1760 Ton-U in storage at the facility as a whole. That suggests which suggests about 600 Ton-U in the pools in the roofs. In the neighbourhood of the IEER numbers...
posted by Chuckles at 4:00 PM on March 14, 2011

Wasn't the roof-blowing segment the tertiary contaiment-that-wasn't-really-containment?
posted by hwyengr at 4:00 PM on March 14, 2011

hwyengr: no, I never heard or saw anyone speak of tertiary containment. The outer building is labelled 'secondary containment' in diagrams of this design.
posted by rainy at 4:01 PM on March 14, 2011

Let's look at the diagram, which has handy mouseovers. That suggests to me that the roof-blowing-off bit is, in fact, not the secondary bell-shaped containment, nor the reactor vessel itself.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 4:02 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

But it's not as bad as it sounds because primary containment is much stronger than secondary. However if it is indeed compromised now that's not good news at all. Because that's all the containments we had left.
posted by rainy at 4:02 PM on March 14, 2011

Yeah, my understanding was that the reactor core is the primary, the inverted light-bulb of concrete is secondary, and the top section just kept the rain out.
posted by hwyengr at 4:03 PM on March 14, 2011

fairytale: I saw a different diagram, I'll try to find it. I hope I'm wrong.
posted by rainy at 4:04 PM on March 14, 2011

NHK World is reporting a blast heard at the #2 Reactor. Nuclear official speaking now...
posted by dialetheia at 4:05 PM on March 14, 2011

According to nucleartourist.com ¹ a BWR fuel assembly contains 208.0kg of uranium and weighs 319.9 kg total (your mileage, mass may vary).

¹ Citing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes," Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Part 191 (July 1, 1996).
posted by zippy at 4:05 PM on March 14, 2011

Press conference now from NISA (live on NHK World): Blast heard at #2 reactor. At #2 reactor, water level was recovering, but then the level started falling. The valve (venting valve?) was partially shut down, but at midnight, they tried to open the valve again. They believe that water is being injected, but top 2700mm of the fuel rods were exposed last night.
posted by zachlipton at 4:06 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think the confusion is that they don't usually call the reactor vessel part of the "containment" system. By definition, the containment is a backup to the vessel. So the drywell walls are "primary" and the building is "secondary". (The vessel is "zero-dary")
posted by Popular Ethics at 4:06 PM on March 14, 2011

Going by Arclight's description, the containment is as follows:

Primary containment is a group of three containment mechanisms: first, the rods containing the pellets (these are what are partially melted); second, the pressure vessel; third, a concrete containment vessel expected to hold a pool of molten fuel, in the worst case.

Secondary containment, as referred to above, is the cubic structure surrounding primary containment. This is what was blown off by hydrogen explosion vented from primary containment. It's not expected to significantly contain anything beyond vented gases. It had one virtue, which it carried out: When the hydrogen exploded, it directed the explosive force upwards, away from the other reactors
posted by fatbird at 4:08 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

"zero-dary" - vegan?
posted by zippy at 4:08 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

Thanks, Popular Ethics; that's exactly the clarification I was hoping for.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 4:09 PM on March 14, 2011

Here: generic-bwr , the outer building is labelled as 'secondary containment'. The lightbulb containment is primary.
posted by rainy at 4:11 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

NISA spokesman says impact on human health "very low" for now. Tepco now holding news conference: this morning from 6-6:15, there was a big explosive impact around 6:14 and they heard a strange sound around the suppression pool and the pressure control area may have experienced some kind of problem. Will continue efforts to inject water into pressure vessel. Staff has temporarily evacuated outside of the 1F for their safety, remaining staff are working to secure safety.
posted by zachlipton at 4:11 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Hey, I'm just diving into this thread after sporadic reading/skimming over the last few days. Can anyone give a succinct summary of the real risk to central Tokyo from what's going on? Earlier, people in here seemed to be agreeing that the worst-case scenario was only going to have any real affect on the immediate vicinity of the plants, is that still a consensus? My sister is in Tokyo and some people seem to be panicking, I'm wondering if she should head down to Osaka as one of her friends did or if being worried about fallout from this 200 miles away is unreasonable. Some reassurance would be greatly appreciated.
posted by brightghost at 4:12 PM on March 14, 2011

Half of the rods exposed now after the explosion says the spokesperson.
posted by lazaruslong at 4:13 PM on March 14, 2011

the drywell walls are "primary"

Just nitpicking here, but my reading of the various drawings is that the drywell is the thin and open concrete tube (plus hemispherical base) that the reactor vessel sits in. That couldn't be counted as containment in any sense. I take that as a completely distinct element from the inverted lightbulb structure. My reading is that the inverted lightbulb is a containment structure, but the drywell is just structural support for the reactor vessel.
posted by Chuckles at 4:13 PM on March 14, 2011

Boy, this NHK World interpreter sounds rattled. :/
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 4:14 PM on March 14, 2011

chuckles: not according to the diagram I linked to a few comments up.
posted by rainy at 4:15 PM on March 14, 2011

Company documents show that Tokyo Electric tested the Fukushima plant to withstand a maximum seismic jolt lower than Friday's 8.9 earthquake.

I've seen this claim "Fukushima was designed to withstand an 8.2 (or whatever) earthquake bandied about a couple of times now.

Here's the part I don't understand: The earthquake was penned at 9.0, which is a figure indicating the total energy released by the quake, right? This means that the waves or tremors at the epicenter will have a certain amplitude. At a certain distance, say 100 or 200 miles away, the tremors will be attenuated somewhat and thus correspond to a quake rated 9.0 - x happening right there, right?

So what does "designed to withstand an 8.2 quake" mean? Does it mean "designed to withstand an 8.2 quake happening directly beneath it"? Or what? And if so, what was the "equivalent" quake strength at Fukushima?
posted by sour cream at 4:15 PM on March 14, 2011

chucles: I mean, it looks like drywell is "counted" as part of containment, at least.
posted by rainy at 4:16 PM on March 14, 2011

Chuckles: fair enough.

On NHK world now, a spokesperson has suggested that the pressure in the vapor suppression vessel (the torus) has dropped, indicating a leak. This may have coincided with an explosion sound.

F.
posted by Popular Ethics at 4:16 PM on March 14, 2011

NHK's expert is saying that water containing radiation could have leaked out of the pool and that the pressure in the container vessel went from 3 atm to 1 atm during the explosion. Container vessel is the "last line of defense" to prevent release of radioactive material. That's why staff was evacuated.

Crap. He just said "this could be the worst case scenario for the nuclear accident in Japan."
posted by zachlipton at 4:16 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

The suppression pool is separate from the containment, right? Theoretically the concrete should be intact unless it was damaged in the earthquake? Is there an active cooling system for fuel that melts into it, or is it just a time thing?

I mean, the containment system is there for a reason, right? How thick is the concrete base? Can molten fuel stay there indefinitely?
posted by hwyengr at 4:16 PM on March 14, 2011

sour cream: it appears they were looking at sesmic maps and they estimated there's a max magnitude quake that may happen in a particular area away from the station.

Anyway, it doesn't matter much since it was the tsunami that disabled backup generators. We haven't heard of any damage caused directly by quake yet. Presumably, if there was just the tsunami and no quake, things would be just as bad as they are now.
posted by rainy at 4:19 PM on March 14, 2011

BBC: A fresh explosion has been heard at a quake-hit nuclear plant in northern Japan, local media say.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:20 PM on March 14, 2011

As I understand it, the Mark I containment has previously been considered a rather suspect design. We're not completely sure how to interpret the Sandia report on this (mentioned above), but it doesn't provide much confidence in the primary containment if the pressure vessel is leaking, which might be happening now. There's also question as to whether the secondary containment was weakened in the earthquake or in the explosions.
posted by zachlipton at 4:22 PM on March 14, 2011

what is the worst case scenario, at this point? does anybody really know?
posted by angrycat at 4:28 PM on March 14, 2011

Ya, I'm less sure of my reading than I was.. That one drawing says "Inerted Drywell", which is a bit suspect too. I think we all have the right idea, even if the language is messed up a little, so I think I'll just wait for a more authoritative version :P
posted by Chuckles at 4:29 PM on March 14, 2011

NHK reporting that everyone not involved directly in the injection of water at Unit 2 is being evacuated from the site just in case.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 4:30 PM on March 14, 2011

does anybody really know?

There are lots of people who have studied the effects of meltdowns at BWRs. I'm not one of them unfortunately. I'm furiously googling for reports.
posted by Popular Ethics at 4:30 PM on March 14, 2011

I believe the worst cases would be "radioactive sludge on ground, stay clear until we cap it / clean it up" and "violent expansion of gasses happens underneath or within something, and let's hope it doesn't happen in such a way that radioactive stuff gets sprayed into the air"
posted by zippy at 4:33 PM on March 14, 2011

There are lots of people who have studied the effects of meltdowns at BWRs.

Wait - has there actually been a meltdown to study? Or do you mean who have modelled or predicted or risk-analysed such an event? Pretty different things - one of the biggest errors in science is mistaking your model for reality.
posted by Rumple at 4:33 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Le Monde:

00:24 CET:

We already knew, before learning that an explosion had occurred at reactor no. 2, that this reactor's containment vessel had been damaged. But what we didn't know is that the explosion had in fact already occurred at that time.

So for the moment, we still don't know if the damage was or wasn't caused by the explosion.

00:25 CET:

According to information from NHK, the radioactivity levels aren't alarming around reactor 1. Reactor 2, where an explosion was heard early this morning, is exposed to risks of radioactive leaks, but this isn't the case for the moment, said the Japanese government spokesman, who admits he doesn't know what part of the reactor was damaged and in what form, liquid or gas, leaks could occur.
posted by neal at 4:35 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Tepco conference starting now: "We regret that we are causing concern to many residents of Japan." At #2 reactor at 6:14 AM, there was a blast near the suppression pool and the pressure began to fall. Water injection continuing, but operators not directly involved are being ordered to evacuate. Operators are "doing their best" to contain the problem. No significant change in the parameters with regard to the container vessel (?) and we apologize for causing concern to the public.

Now, let's talk about Fukushima-2 plant [ed: let's find something less screwed up to talk about?]. Inspection on March 15 at 12:35am, complied with Article 10 obligations.
posted by zachlipton at 4:37 PM on March 14, 2011

There hasn't been a meltdown (partial or otherwise) at a BWR to study. I'm talking about models and analysis. There have been partial and full meltdowns and explosions at other reactors, but it would be a mistake to extrapolate without considering the differences in design.
posted by Popular Ethics at 4:37 PM on March 14, 2011

...press conference just had a question that was basically "Wait, you're apologizing now, but there wasn't any official statement of apology before-- are you guys holding out on us?" to the TEPCO guys.

They apologized again and the reporter cut them off all "You're not answering the question. How serious is this?"

(NHK World, still.)
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 4:38 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

Water injection continuing, but operators not directly involved are being ordered to evacuate. Operators are "doing their best" to contain the problem.

Tape this to the wall of your cubicle for when you have a 'my job sucks' moment.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:38 PM on March 14, 2011 [11 favorites]

I am seriously crossing my fingers that the 1960's era engineers from GE were as awesome as I always imagined they were.
posted by hwyengr at 4:39 PM on March 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

Tepco press conference continued: This does not mean that this is a very serious situation, we just want to apologize to the public.

Reporter: you're not answering our question. Is it very serious? We are not asking your opinion but we want to listen to the facts. [ed: this is going great...]

Tepco: The blast was heard near the pressure vessel. We checked the parameters and found damage to the suppression pool. Right after the explosion sound, we see that the "other parameters have no changed greatly" and also that the water level was at -2700mm before and after the explosion. Those are the facts. What does this mean? We still are trying to grasp that.
posted by zachlipton at 4:40 PM on March 14, 2011

They apologized again and the reporter cut them off all "You're not answering the question. How serious is this?"

Is this, culturally speaking, extreme behavior for a reporter at a news conference in Japan?
posted by zippy at 4:41 PM on March 14, 2011

Zippy: Zach's watching it from a better perspective to comment than I am? But I found that... odd. I'm asking my translator.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 4:42 PM on March 14, 2011

@hayano reports on information from the Nuclear and Industry Safety Agency: They are unable to use the leak sensor because it doesn't have the power to run. The radiation level is too high to get in and directly examine what's going on with the leak. If they keep pouring seawater on it they think they can safely bring it to a cold stop.

They think they have confirmed that the pressure vessel is still intact, and that there's very little chance of it going critical because the control rods are in.
posted by Jeanne at 4:42 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Translator coworker: "Don't count those reporters. Reporters are pretty bad."

So, perhaps not unheard-of. Certainly understandable in the situation, too.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 4:43 PM on March 14, 2011

Tepco press conference continued: No answer right now to when evacuations started and how many staff evacuated. Will find out later.

Now much arguing back and forth because the government was reporting damage to the suppression pool but Tepco is not. Tepco finally admits that damage is a possibility, but maybe there is a problem with the pressure gauge.

[Wow. This adversarial tone seems extreme to my very minimal knowledge of Japanese journalism]

50 staff members remain on site, but others have evacuated.
posted by zachlipton at 4:44 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Tepco press conference continued: Steam is transferred to the suppression pool, so the radioactive substances are released through the valve, so there is no significant way the air is released to the outside. They keep saying that the pressure in the pressure vessel has been maintained.

There are 2 chambers [ed: pressure vessel and containment?]. We observe that there is a possibility that damage was done to the suppression pool. [ed: didn't really answer the question as to what chambers were damaged] Water injection is being continued. Water level was very low but it is beginning to rise. Latest data is that 2.7m of the fuel rods are exposed.
posted by zachlipton at 4:47 PM on March 14, 2011

Translator coworker notes, not for the first time in the last three days, that he feels that the TEPCO guys have been told not to reveal everything they know about the situation.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 4:48 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'm a bit confused. The TEPCO guys are saying the pressure and level are steady in the reactor vessel, while the pressure has dropped in the suppression pool. I was under the impression that the two vessels were open to each other now, so I don't know how that's possible.

The question of whether damage to the suppression pool would prevent operators from increasing the water level in the reactor was asked, but it was not answered.
posted by Popular Ethics at 4:49 PM on March 14, 2011

Seesh. @norishikata, the Deputy Cabinet Secretary for Public Relations just tweeted: "If you are in Fukushima, please do not try to physically approach Unit 2 of Fukushima Daiichi for media coverage or other purposes."
posted by zachlipton at 4:49 PM on March 14, 2011

If I was there, I would be a stand-up citizen and not approach units 1 and 3 just as well.
posted by rainy at 4:51 PM on March 14, 2011 [12 favorites]

neal, is that liveblog in English or in French, and where can it be found?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:52 PM on March 14, 2011

Popular Ethics: NHK's expert is saying now the pressure in the top part of the pressure vessel, the "dry well," has not gone down, but that the pressure did drop from 3atm to 1atm in the suppression chamber. Apparently, this top part is where more of the radioactive material is kept. Does anyone know what this means exactly?
posted by zachlipton at 4:53 PM on March 14, 2011

Ah crap. I just reviewed the diagram. The drywell and the torus are connected. The reactor is isolated (except for the steam venting). It's not like damage to the torus (suppression chamber) will cause water to leak out of the reactor vessel. I need to stop typing before I think.
posted by Popular Ethics at 4:53 PM on March 14, 2011

There are 2 chambers [ed: pressure vessel and containment?]

I believe the suppression pool is the torus (nuclear tourists BWR entry).
posted by Chuckles at 4:54 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'd like to know, too- what is the "suppression pool" as the Guardian liveblog calls it? How important is it?

There is a "possibility" that damage was done to the suppression pool at the bottom of the containment vessel inside Fukushima's number two reactor

posted by BungaDunga at 4:54 PM on March 14, 2011

We're not completely sure how to interpret the Sandia report on this (mentioned above), but it doesn't provide much confidence in the primary containment if the pressure vessel is leaking, which might be happening now. There's also question as to whether the secondary containment was weakened in the earthquake or in the explosions.

The containment considered in that Sandia report does not include the concrete. It considers the steel that is in between that and the reactor pressure vessel. Maybe the concrete surrounding the steel is considered part of the reactor building and secondary; there's a gap between the steel and it in places, at the top and bottom I believe.

The report also lists the various failure modes if pressure isn't controlled. If I'm reading this right, blowing a head gasket is the most likely failure, at about triple the design pressure, 150psig, as seen in figure 4.17. That's if there isn't any significant corrosion from years of service. If there's wetwell corrosion it can become the weak spot according to 4.18.
posted by sfenders at 4:55 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

50 staff members remain on site, but others have evacuated.

I can't even imagine what it is like for those men and women who are risking everything in order to try and contain the situation and reduce the potential damage that could be caused. There's been an earthquake and a tsunami, some of them probably don't even know if their loved ones are safe, there's explosions in their workplace... Fuck...
posted by Elmore at 4:55 PM on March 14, 2011 [9 favorites]

goodnewsfortheinsane — It's in French, but even if you don't speak the language, you can get surprisingly good French-to-English translations from Google Translate. Here's the link.
posted by neal at 4:58 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Also, Tepco has confirmed that a "steam like substance" is accumulating in the top of the #3 reactor, but they don't know what it is or what it means. This is increasingly pathetic...
posted by zachlipton at 4:59 PM on March 14, 2011

Thanks neal.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:59 PM on March 14, 2011

Aha, thanks Chuckles:

The torus or suppression pool is used to remove heat released if an event occurs in which large quantities of steam are released from the reactor or the Reactor Recirculation System, used to circulate water through the reactor.

So are they using the torus right now for cooling? Or, I guess were they.

I had the same thought, Elmore. Worst. Possible. Workday. Ever. Okay, with the possible exception of a mining cave-in. But talk about heroism.

Thanks for the link neal, I know a bit of French (and yeah, Google Translate is almost obnoxiously good at translating French, makes my language skills, such as they are, seem somewhat superfluous).
posted by BungaDunga at 5:00 PM on March 14, 2011

It has been almost 8 hours since TEPCO has put out a press release about radiation levels at Daiichi.

...And I just heard that they have measured 8000 microSieverts/hr at Daiichi. So one hour of exposure is equivalent to three years of exposure to normal background radiation. 10-12 hours of exposure would be enough to raise your risk of cancer.
posted by Jeanne at 5:00 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

Woah. 8217 microsiverts/hour measured at the main gate of the plant at 8:31am. That's huge.
posted by zachlipton at 5:00 PM on March 14, 2011

"I'd like to know, too- what is the "suppression pool"

Chuckles has it. The ring shaped tank around the base is called either the "torus" or the "pressure / vapor suppression pool". It's part of primary containment, the envelope around the reactor vessel designed to contain any emission from the reactor vessel. Since they have been venting steam from this envelope since yesterday, it's already somewhat compromised. Watch the radiation measurements to see if this envelope is damaged enough to increase emissions from the plant.
posted by Popular Ethics at 5:02 PM on March 14, 2011

Is that the same as a microcurie? I'm ignorant here.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:03 PM on March 14, 2011

BWR containment failure analysis during degraded core incidents (pdf). D. D. Yue. Oak Ridge National Lab. 1982. (research sponsored by the US NRC, ONR).

Excerpts:

This paper presents a containment failure mode analysis during a spectrum of postulated core accident sequences in a typical 1000-MW(e) boiling water reactor (BWR) with a Mark-I wetwell containment. Overtemperature failure of containment electric penetration assemblies has been found to be the major failure mode during such accidents

In a previous paper on containment responses following an extended loss of all offsite and onsite AC power, CEPA overtemperature during the postulated core meltdown was identified as the dominant failure mode. This paper extends the analysis to eight severe accident sequences ....

As the containment temperature increases ... the dielectric material would totally lose its electrical insulation properties and sealing integrity until ... containment failure.

Experimental investigations of BWR Suppression Pool Behaviour Under Loss of Coolant Accident Conditions (abstract), Gupta et al, Becker Technologies GmbH, presented at ICAPP 2011.

Simulation of small break LOCA effects on BWR-pressure suppression systems (paywall), Aust et al, Nuclear Engineering and Design. 2003
posted by zippy at 5:05 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

rainy: "hwyengr: no, I never heard or saw anyone speak of tertiary containment. The outer building is labelled 'secondary containment' in diagrams of this design"

Apologies if someone has stepped in on this already.

hwyengr is correct, somewhere in one of these two threads the interior space of the buildings with the blown roofs, that is to say the formerly interior space of those buildings, was described explicitly as not 'containment.'

I believe the discussion then began to consider that space as, effectively, tertiary containment although I do not recall that term being used. In particular, the discussion concerned hydrogen buildup in the interior space.
posted by mwhybark at 5:06 PM on March 14, 2011

I can't tell the FUD from the truth anymore. Did the containment vessel at number 2 just go up? Is it time for me to break out the Nuka Cola and iodine pills?
posted by Justinian at 5:08 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Is that the same as a microcurie? I'm ignorant here.

No, a microSievert is a measure of dose. A microCurie is a measure of activity. It works like this: A radioactive object of activity X microcuries emits a "field strength" of Y microsieverts/hour (at a certain distance). Anyone standing at that point will absorb Z microsieverts if he stands there for a while. Radiation sickness occurs after a certain dose, so when the fields are high, you have less time to hang around before reaching a dangerous dose.
posted by Popular Ethics at 5:08 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

I don't think Sieverts and Curies are measuring quite the same thing?

The figures that I've been reading are:

A chest Xray is about 6000 microSieverts
100 milliSieverts (100,000 microSieverts) increases your risk of cancer
500 milliSieverts (500,000 microSieverts) causes the first symptoms of radiation poisoning (lethargy, anemia)
2000 milliSieverts (2 million microSieverts) starts to cause death in a smallish percentage of people
6000 milliSieverts kills everybody.
posted by Jeanne at 5:09 PM on March 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

mwhybark: see this diagram.
posted by rainy at 5:10 PM on March 14, 2011

Wolfram Alpha says they aren't convertable units.
posted by nomisxid at 5:10 PM on March 14, 2011

To clarify my earlier exclamation, 8217μSv/h is 0.827 rem. Americans tend to receive around 360 mrem/year from natural sources (see here). In other words, the amount of radiation coming out in one hour is around 3 times "normal" for a year. As I understand it, this isn't enough to immediately make you sick, but it's certainly high and is the highest we've seen yet in this incident. For perspective, this is still many many times lower than we saw at Chernobyl.
posted by zachlipton at 5:10 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

zachlipton: however I assume all the workers are wearing / can quickly don rad suits?
posted by rainy at 5:12 PM on March 14, 2011

Well, then, is there any info re microcuries? My husband is asking. All of this is frankly greek to me but he wants to know.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:12 PM on March 14, 2011

The blast appears to be the most serious yet, with Kyodo news agency reporting possible damage to the suppression pool of the containment vessel – increasing the risk of a significant release of radioactive material. The news agency said the safety agency feared radiation was leaking. cite
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 5:13 PM on March 14, 2011

zachlipton: "Press conference now from NISA (live on NHK World): Blast heard at #2 reactor. At #2 reactor, water level was recovering, but then the level started falling. The valve (venting valve?) was partially shut down, but at midnight, they tried to open the valve again. They believe that water is being injected, but top 2700mm of the fuel rods were exposed last night"

So is this four total or three total now? There was an overnight report of a third explosion but I was never clear which plant it was associated with. Son of a bitch, I am seriously having trouble keeping track of this now.

WNN has not updated since 8p Japan time last night. Anything from TEPCO yet? These seem to me to be uncharacteristcally long delays, but it's only 9a still in Japan and I can imagine there's a hill of data to parse and then to translate.
posted by mwhybark at 5:15 PM on March 14, 2011

mwhybark: see this diagram.

Although look also at page 2 -- the secondary containment is the concrete portion of the reactor building, not the steel-and-cladding shed on top.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 5:15 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I can't tell the FUD from the truth anymore. Did the containment vessel at number 2 just go up?

I don't think even TEPCO knows that right now for sure, which is why there's confusion. They saw some pressure readings that suggested that primary containment (the suppression chamber / torus specifically) might be damaged. This isn't "worst case" yet - they're saying they can still maintain a water level in the reactor vessel. Keep your eye on the radiation measurements.
posted by Popular Ethics at 5:16 PM on March 14, 2011

My impression on reading about Sieverts, Curies, and Banana Equivalent Doses is that Curies are a measure of the actual physical radioactive decay of something, but that sieverts and the like are meant to measure the amount of radiation it takes to cause biological changes.
posted by ZeusHumms at 5:17 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Someone just said TEPCO's response has been... "not-so-appropriate so far," said the interpreter.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:18 PM on March 14, 2011

We had a deal: good point.. it seems like, from sat photos, it's not clear if the concrete shell is damaged in unit 1, but is damaged in unit 3? No idea about unit 2.
posted by rainy at 5:19 PM on March 14, 2011

The Guardian liveblog is reporting that the latest explosion was caused by hydrogen.
posted by zachlipton at 5:19 PM on March 14, 2011

There's nothing since 1:05 a.m. from TEPCO on reactor 1. (At this point I do start to get worried about them deliberately hiding something, because it has been a long time). At 6:00 they released a new radiation chart for reactor 2. Since apparently reactor 2 is not having any serious problems, I think that the increase in radiation this morning is most likely radiation from reactor 1. At 3 a.m. the radiation went up to 912 microSieverts/hr, close to twice the legal limit, but was back to 40 microSieverts/hr by 6:00 a.m.
posted by Jeanne at 5:20 PM on March 14, 2011

Someone just said TEPCO's response has been... "not-so-appropriate so far," said the interpreter.

This is my surprised face.

Those bastards.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:21 PM on March 14, 2011

Here's a description of containment loss that I think matches the symptoms of the suppression chamber losing water and there being an explosion and increased radiation.

I would like to think that this is not what's happened.

Impact of core-concrete interactions in the Mark I containment drywell on containment integrity and failure of the drywell liner (pdf), D. D. Yue, IAEA, 1982

tl;dr - venting hot stuff outside the reactor vessel can cause the metal of the vessel to interact unfavorably with the surrounding concrete and standby gas treatment system (I think this means the suppression chamber causing failure before vessel overpressure is reached.

"local ablation of the steel drywell liner due to contact with the moltgen corium ... a flow path to the reactor building and standby gas treatment system, bypassing the wetwell, will be available ..."
posted by zippy at 5:23 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think they are saying that there is a crack in the torus, which is officially part of the primary containment system. However, it isn't part of the inverted lightbulb that actually contains the reactor.

Or for a bigger picture (I feel uncomfortable going here, cause I don't know much about it, and I haven't even been following the technical details from eriko et al that closely, but anyway)..
I think the situation is like this. The water inside the primary containment (including inverted lightbulb and torus) is isolated from the outside world (that's what they mean by containment). This is because the water would be made radioactive by close proximity to the core. When they decided to vent steam, I think they were venting water vapour from that system, but it was filtered to limit the radioactive material releaseed into the environment. It now seems that the torus is cracked, and radioactive water is leaking directly into the environment. Well, at this point I guess I'll call it "water" because I don't think it is pure H2O. To understand the impact of all this, you need info about nuclear chemistry, and I don't know anything about that at all.
posted by Chuckles at 5:24 PM on March 14, 2011

small typo

... gas treatment system (I think this means the suppression chamber ) causing failure ...
posted by zippy at 5:25 PM on March 14, 2011

(Thank you for the terminology help, everyone.)
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:25 PM on March 14, 2011

also, shoot, wrong author. That was Greene et al, not Yue.
posted by zippy at 5:25 PM on March 14, 2011

rainy: "mwhybark: see this diagram"

Ah, yes, I have seen that diagram.

I think there may be a terminology difference - I recall hearing the reactor vessel, shown in that diagram in blue, as primary, the drywell shown in that diagram as secondary, and the building as non-containment. But in looking through all the visual references I can find, the terminology is consistent as you describe.
posted by mwhybark at 5:26 PM on March 14, 2011

Frankly I have little faith that either Japanese government officials or TEPCO officials are being honest about the situation at this point. I suppose that makes me a FUD-ite "fear mongerer" to some here; so be it. Btw, I really, really hope I'm proven wrong about this.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 5:26 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

Frankly I have little faith that either Japanese government officials or TEPCO officials are being honest about the situation at this point.

I'm a pro-nuke cheerleader, and I'm fairly certain that there's information being omitted at the very least. How much and how critical? I'm not well enough informed to say.
posted by KathrynT at 5:27 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

St. Alia of the Bunnies, if my units program isn't nutty,

You have: curie * m^2 / s
You want: sievert
	* 3.7e+10
	/ 2.7027027e-11

So one curie over 1 square meter of area per second exposure = 3.7 * 10^10 sieverts.
YMMV.
posted by zengargoyle at 5:28 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

My nuke geek is only answering my mention of 8217 microSv/h with lines of dots, and a request for me to confirm that figure.

And, certainly, I don't think anyone is stunned that TEPCO isn't saying everything they know. Presumably part of that is "not causing a panic;" how much of the rest of it is "TEPCO are bastards," I will leave to the actual Japanese residents of the thread.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:31 PM on March 14, 2011

The Emperor: I don't think it's shocking if they may be holding some information back, if only to make sure it's not misinterpreted and/or causes more of a panic than it deserves. I think they're looking at a number of possibilities / theories / interpretations and they won't disclose all of them for the reasons I mentioned as well as not to make themselves look bad.

A large part of the problem with TMI was also inability to gauge the state of reactor / coolant system accurately. In an intense and unstable environment, there is a question of how much you can trust sensors and what assumptions you make if sensors don't agree with each other or with other observations.

There's of course the possibility they know something really bad with certainty and are holding it back.
posted by rainy at 5:32 PM on March 14, 2011

In regard to hydrogen explosion / cladding blown off: what's disconcerting is that they haven't come out with the "it's only cladding, it doesn't do anything, both containment systems are perfectly intact". They keep saying primary containment is intact, or just "containment is intact". The whole coverage strikes me as them not wanting to emphasize that the building is the secondary containment and part of it blew up, with the implication that only one containment is left. It's both a building and containment and it sounds better when they call it "building".
posted by rainy at 5:38 PM on March 14, 2011

Live cut-in on NHK World again.
posted by mwhybark at 5:39 PM on March 14, 2011

Based on the Yue study I linked to above, it seems that failure of measuring systems (as well as any hole in the containment vessel for running wires and measurements) is more likely the greater the excess pressure or temperature of the reactor vessel.

We're seeing steel that has been repeatedly heated and quenched, subject to earthquake and subsequent mechanical shock (hydrogen explosion, debris falling on the vessel).

I guess I shoudn't be surprised that the operators may have to operate somewhat blind, but I also think we're in an area of this reactor design that hasn't been well studied outside of theory - what does happen when you perform this kind of stress on the vessel over days or weeks?

I think studies and designs of this vessel may have assumed that the reactor would be brought to a steady state (whether good or bad) much sooner.
posted by zippy at 5:40 PM on March 14, 2011

euphorb writes "The reason new nuclear plants probably won't ever be built in the United States is because they are too expensive. That's partly because all of the redundant engineering that needs to go into them just to make them safe and partly because of the enormous up front fixed costs.
""

Good news for Canada. We'll be putting up new reactors plenty close enough to send nuclear energy to the USA.
posted by Mitheral at 5:41 PM on March 14, 2011

"My nuke geek is only answering my mention of 8217 microSv/h with lines of dots, and a request for me to confirm that figure."

I would be interested to hear what nuke geek says once figure is confirmed. Is that "golly, that's a higher dose than we're like to see" or is it "flee if you are within 200 miles"?
posted by LobsterMitten at 5:45 PM on March 14, 2011

There was a "...methinks TEPCO will be purged." (He's American; take with cultural grain of salt.) I am asking for further clarification.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:46 PM on March 14, 2011

Robert Alvarez, a senior policy expert at the institute of Policy Studies, said satellite pictures of the Fukushima plant showed evidence of damage to the spent fuel pool. "There is clear evidence that the fuel cask cranes that haul spent fuels to and from the reactor to the pool both fell. They are gone," he said. "There appears to be copious amounts of steam pouring of the area where the pools is located."
posted by Huplescat at 5:46 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

@zippy: I appreciate the research, but that paper is talking about what happens when the core completely melts and interacts with the concrete inside containment. If the operators can still read a water level in the reactor, it's safe to say that the core hasn't completely melted yet. (we hope!)
posted by Popular Ethics at 5:47 PM on March 14, 2011

I would be interested to hear what nuke geek says once figure is confirmed

Me too. I didn't even know what a microsievert was until about an hour ago, but now I want to know what 8217 microsieverts an hour means.
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:49 PM on March 14, 2011

"the institute of Policy Studies"

Most generic thinktank name ever?
posted by Asparagirl at 5:50 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

fairytale of los angeles: that's the figure they gave in the press conference. I don't know whether it's still holding at that level or whether that was just the peak, but I'm curious what your guy has to say.
posted by zachlipton at 5:50 PM on March 14, 2011

now I want to know what 8217 microsieverts an hour means

A chest X-ray every 45 minutes.
posted by Flunkie at 5:51 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

For refereance :

I don't think Sieverts and Curies are measuring quite the same thing?

The figures that I've been reading are:

A chest Xray is about 6000 microSieverts
100 milliSieverts (100,000 microSieverts) increases your risk of cancer
500 milliSieverts (500,000 microSieverts) causes the first symptoms of radiation poisoning (lethargy, anemia)
2000 milliSieverts (2 million microSieverts) starts to cause death in a smallish percentage of people
6000 milliSieverts kills everybody.

Posted earlier upthread by Jeanne
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:53 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Most generic thinktank name ever?

When I lived in DC, I would walk by these little unassuming doors in expensive-looking brownstones with small nameplates that said things like Institute for Policy Studies and always thought: "KGB."
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:54 PM on March 14, 2011

8217 microsieverts an hour is something like 3 years' worth of background radiation exposure in one hour, NHK World is saying.

Zach, I think it dropped after that. They made mention of 2040 microSv/h and 3130 microSv/h as well. I don't know if it's the translation or TEPCO's deliberately throwing numbers around out of reference to timeline.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:54 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

How many microsieverts become dangerous even if you're in radiation suit?
posted by rainy at 5:55 PM on March 14, 2011

zippy: I appreciate the research, but that paper is talking about what happens when the core completely melts and interacts with the concrete inside containment

You're right, and I also misinterpreted the abstract to describe a failure caused by the steel on concrete interaction, rather, I think it's "if stuff comes out the bottom, here's what happens when it hits the concrete."
posted by zippy at 5:55 PM on March 14, 2011

If you google "chest x-ray and microSieverts" you get a crazy range.
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:56 PM on March 14, 2011

"Scattered around some known reasonably lively spots, are these accursed Soviet RBMK reactors, wherein there will be nowhere near the level of containment one may reasonably expect from the Japanese incident?" A question raised in a steam tech forum. How many are there left after the closing Chernoblyl's four units?
posted by Jumpin Jack Flash at 5:56 PM on March 14, 2011

It seems evacuating everyone within 20km was a prudent measure.

I will agree with the assumption that it's more likely TEPCO is holding back information because they are unsure, rather than trying to hide anything. You can bet this will all be investigated to the moon and back, so information is about to come out. And if they withhold information that could have been used to save the lives of people nearby it is going to futher shatter the credibility that nuclear power companies have.
posted by chemoboy at 5:57 PM on March 14, 2011

How many are there left after the closing Chernoblyl's four units?

Wikipedia: RBMK status
posted by zippy at 5:59 PM on March 14, 2011

I take that ("chest X-ray every 45 minutes") back. I got that from a claim, in this thread, of a chest X-ray being about 6000 microSv. I don't know if that's accurate, and I don't know where the original poster got it from.

Meanwhile, this page (which I also don't know is accurate) claims a chest X-ray is about 0.1 milliSv.

Which would mean 8217 microSv per hour would be about a chest X-ray every 45 seconds.

So, the real answer is, I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm not sure who does, so don't listen to me.
posted by Flunkie at 5:59 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

Is it just me, or is the detailed discussion of the current wind patterns around the plant more than a little disconcerting?
posted by ob1quixote at 6:00 PM on March 14, 2011

A chest X-ray every 45 minutes

So, like, a really bad case of hypochondria?
posted by staggernation at 6:02 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

A plastic 'radiation suit' is only going to provide protection from particulate contamination. They don't have enough mass to provide shielding. There are new kinds of lead radiation suits that claim to provide actual protection.

"The suit is an excellent shield of high-energy beta particles, such as those emitted from Strontium-90, and provides at least 50% shielding of gamma rays up to 130 Kev."
posted by nomisxid at 6:05 PM on March 14, 2011

live video stream of geiger counter in Koto-ku, Tokyo

Wow, uh, I'm totally not going to sit here and watch that, even from Los Angeles. My OCD finds its mixture of data and fear weirdly compelling. I am glad the rest of you have that resource, though.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 6:06 PM on March 14, 2011

Thank you so much for the geiger counter links, flapjax at midnite.
posted by birdsquared at 6:06 PM on March 14, 2011

nomisxid: thanks
posted by rainy at 6:07 PM on March 14, 2011

Zippy: Thanks.
posted by Jumpin Jack Flash at 6:08 PM on March 14, 2011

Looking more at that page, I note that these suits are only rated for an evacuation scenario, which I suspect means they don't hold to that level of radiation blocking for a significant period of time. They would have to be cycling into fresh suits on a regular basis to maintain protection. At a company with a prior record of cutting corners, how large a stockpile of $1600+ suits they have, if any....
posted by nomisxid at 6:11 PM on March 14, 2011

I've lost faith in the engineers at this point. I'm going with Xanax and Advil every 6 hours until the headache and overwhelming sense of panic fades or the crisis ends.
posted by humanfont at 6:19 PM on March 14, 2011

Really guys, don't watch the Geiger counters, don't load the graphs. Leave them for the Japanese, they need access more than you do.
posted by polyhedron at 6:21 PM on March 14, 2011 [11 favorites]

How many bananas in a chest X-ray?
posted by scalefree at 6:21 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 6:25 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm all for nukes, but this is turning out to be a real white-knuckler. I can't imagine what it's like being at the plant trying to get the damn pumps to work. God help those people.
posted by Camofrog at 6:25 PM on March 14, 2011

live video stream of geiger counter in Koto-ku, Tokyo

Wow, uh, I'm totally not going to sit here and watch that, even from Los Angeles.

Wow, uh, good. As noted above, it'll be much better that you don't, and leave these sites as unburdened as possible for those of us in Tokyo who really need this.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:26 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

Just turned on CNN in hopes of getting up to date cable news coverage of what's going on. Next up: Yoko Ono. ARE YOU SHITTING ME CNN?
posted by Dr. Zira at 6:26 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh man, she ruined the Plastic Ono Band.
posted by infinitywaltz at 6:28 PM on March 14, 2011

Dr. Zira: to be fair, they got the country right.
posted by rainy at 6:28 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Wow, uh, good. As noted above, it'll be much better that you don't, and leave these sites as unburdened as possible for those of us in Tokyo who really need this.

Indeed. I've offered my apologies in MeMail and I'll offer them here as well.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 6:31 PM on March 14, 2011

Wow, uh, good. As noted above, it'll be much better that you don't, and leave these sites as unburdened as possible for those of us in Tokyo who really need this.
Well, I doubt MeFites will be able to down ustream.tv, aren't they the kind of site that expects to have lots of viewers at once? But the graph page, yeah, could be more fragile.
posted by BungaDunga at 6:31 PM on March 14, 2011

Oh, and I was driving in Central Texas around sunset. It sure looked like a large amount of planes were headed to Fort Hood. Quite possibly related to this event.
posted by polyhedron at 6:32 PM on March 14, 2011

BungaDunga, please do the responsible thing.
posted by polyhedron at 6:32 PM on March 14, 2011

Must say, loving Rachel Maddow at the moment, remaining calm, composed, and delivering the news as it should be delivered. Thanks Rachel!
posted by JoeXIII007 at 6:34 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

So, having checked out that geiger counter, can anyone tell me what it means? Can anyone translate geiger-speak into sievert-speak?

Or, here in Chiba, do I need to be worried right now?
posted by Ghidorah at 6:35 PM on March 14, 2011

brightghost, I think it is entirely possible in a very worst case scenario, but possible does not mean probable or even at all likely.
posted by Camofrog at 6:37 PM on March 14, 2011

Ghidorah--I've been checking it too. Apparently 20-30 is safe, but when it gets into the thousands we've got a problem.
posted by zardoz at 6:39 PM on March 14, 2011

I- wait, what? No, I'm not going to be watching the geiger stream, but the way these sites work is that the streamer only uploads once, to a central server. Then the server forwards it along to everyone who wants to watch. Just for comparison, it's streaming that geiger stream to 261 people, and NHK TV to 2500 people. I don't think ustream.tv is likely to run out of bandwidth.
posted by BungaDunga at 6:39 PM on March 14, 2011

Question:

I think I was reading somewhere that the "torus" portion of the reactor(s) - which is the I believe the overflow/cooling basin surrounding the reactor at the bottom - contains a large quantity of graphite.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

If it does contain a large quantity of graphite and there's actually a melt-through of the containment vessel - that may be something of a game changer and potentially very bad news if there's a flow of molten corium and a severe breach.
posted by loquacious at 6:43 PM on March 14, 2011

I am genuinely curious if the US media, especially TV, is aware just how demolished they appear after Al Jazeera's coverage of Egypt last month and the literally incredibly terrible coverage of this issue.

The flipside of this is clearly the surreality of how we're consuming this non-local media. I mean, I saw two tweets (from Neil Gaiman, for chrissake) about the earthquake that were not quite an hour old and really before I realized what I was doing I was watching that NHK helicopter footage, live, of the tsunami running in over the fields - on my freaking phone, in bed. It took a few moments of gaping before I grasped what I was looking at and I decided I did not want to watch that live.

Since then, literally every time I have looked to English language media for coverage of the reactor situation, I'm stunned by either inaccuracies or time-based offset issues (and it can be difficult to identify which is which). I mean, about the time we forked threads, my interpretation was that the MetaFilter threads were running about two hours ahead of Western news, largely as a result of thread contributors promptly locating and interpreting both NGO and press sources in the Japanese media.

In this specific thread, it seems like we've gotten about as direct as possible without actually acting as direct-source reporters ourselves. I'm kinda exhausted from the work involved and I'm not even doing the heavy lifting like zippy is. But this thread is now running more than 12 hours ahead of professional English-language Western media reporting. It's not what I would call convenient, but damn.
posted by mwhybark at 6:44 PM on March 14, 2011 [26 favorites]

Just turned on CNN in hopes of getting up to date cable news coverage of what's going on. Next up: Yoko Ono. ARE YOU SHITTING ME CNN?

CNN lost me when they asked a Geophysicist they were interviewing "how long will it take to rebuild?". Awkward.
posted by littlesq at 6:45 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

sorry, literally every time I have looked for timely coverage. I am still relying on English-language sources for interpretation, confirmation and such, but it seems like it's taking an awfully long time.
posted by mwhybark at 6:47 PM on March 14, 2011

In a worst-case scenario? It's assumed.

See here.

Yeah, I'm interested in the opinions of people who have some knowledge of this sort of thing, not how the scared people in Tokyo are responding to it — I already know that, thanks.
posted by brightghost at 6:49 PM on March 14, 2011

Also, worker evacuations and ongoing smoke from reactor three isn't good news at all. That second explosion appeared to be much dirtier looking than the first one, and has some very large pieces of debris thrown a few hundred, maybe a thousand feet up and fell out rapidly in a way the first one didn't.

I don't really have any further armchair analysis except for "Oh, fuck." This is actually going a lot worse than I expected.

May we all live in less interesting times.
posted by loquacious at 6:51 PM on March 14, 2011

Prime Minister is about to address the nation.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:51 PM on March 14, 2011

Where what when? I flipped NHK World on again but I'm seeing a weather report.
posted by mwhybark at 6:55 PM on March 14, 2011

11:00, they said.
posted by Jeanne at 6:56 PM on March 14, 2011

I have found a paper that gives some productive insight into the scenario of a melt-through into the torus room: The role of BWR secondary containments in severe accident mitigation: Issues and insights from recent analyses

There is also a paragraph in it that finally explained for me how the hydrogen ended up in the reactor building rather than getting vented up the stack as one might think it should have done:
Existing BWRs employ primary containuent venting systems to provide the venting capability necessary for containment inerting prior to reactor startup and de-inerting prior to personnel entry into the primary containment. Most existing plant emergency operating procedures call for containment venning when containment pressure reaches or exceeds ths design value (48 to 60 psig or 331 to 414 kPa gauge) . 35-37 Failure of the vent system ducting is likely under these circumstances, since the systems were not designed for such pressure differentials. Such ducting failures would allow the vented material to discharge directly into the reactor building, flooding the building with steam and combustible gases, and effectively eliminating further access to the secondary containment. Backfitting of dedicated "hard" vent systems (which employ high-pressure ducting throughout the entire system but no filters) has been suggested as one mechanism for improving vent reliability. It should also be noted that, existing containment venting systems would not be functional during station blackout sequences. Power (d.c. or a.c. or direct human manipulation) is required for vent valve operation.
posted by Morbuto at 6:58 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

May we all live in less interesting times.

Make that heavy on the "live", eh.
posted by bobloblaw at 6:59 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Prime Minister is about to address the nation.

I'm 9000 miles away and I'm nervous for you.
posted by anastasiav at 7:00 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

Here it is, man. Thanks.
posted by mwhybark at 7:01 PM on March 14, 2011

It can't be good when he starts out asking us to remain calm, right?
posted by Jeanne at 7:02 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm finding MSNBC is doing decent news coverage, for what its worth.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:02 PM on March 14, 2011

Katz is doing live direct translation on Yokosonews, fwiw.
posted by mwhybark at 7:03 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

20km-30km he's saying remain indoors.
posted by cashman at 7:04 PM on March 14, 2011

This has been noted already, but the Time Out Tokyo twitter feed is surprisingly good for this.
posted by Adventurer at 7:05 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

PM Kan: There is still a very high risk of further radioactive material coming out. Requesting everyone move out of 20k radius from #1 plant. For those who live 20-30k w/in #1, remain indoors and avoid going outside. Requesting everyone move out of 10k radius from #2 plant. Asking nation to remain calm.
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:06 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

He's done talking, took one question, and left.
posted by cashman at 7:07 PM on March 14, 2011

Edano is speaking now. Mayhap we'll get some real info.
posted by Ghidorah at 7:08 PM on March 14, 2011

Number 4?!!?
posted by mwhybark at 7:08 PM on March 14, 2011

And there's a fire, evidently, at the 4th reactor.
posted by Ghidorah at 7:09 PM on March 14, 2011

Urgh... spent fuel rod fire at reactor 4, apparently.
posted by Morbuto at 7:09 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

"I'd like to talk about reactor number 4. It is now on fire. At the time of the quake, reactor 4 was out of operation. There are no fuel rods in the reactor, but spent fuels are."
posted by Flunkie at 7:09 PM on March 14, 2011

There is a fire at reactor 4.
posted by Jeanne at 7:09 PM on March 14, 2011

Spent fuels, oh geez.
posted by mwhybark at 7:09 PM on March 14, 2011

I wondered about that . . . the fact that some reactors were shut down for maintenance doesn't automatically take them out of the equation for damage and badness.
posted by FelliniBlank at 7:10 PM on March 14, 2011

@timeouttokyo "'This morning, new developments have been observed. TEPCO is going to announce specific and accurate figures.'"

This implies, of course, that prior announcements have not been specific or accurate.
posted by anastasiav at 7:10 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Fuck.
posted by mwhybark at 7:10 PM on March 14, 2011

Spent fuel rods...what does that mean?
posted by zardoz at 7:11 PM on March 14, 2011

.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:11 PM on March 14, 2011

Edano emphasized that the spent fuel rods themselves were not on fire.
posted by Jeanne at 7:12 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

They are still radioactive enough to generate heat, but not enough for proper power generation. They are usually stored under water to manage that heat, until such time as (in Japan at least) they are reprocessed.
posted by nomisxid at 7:13 PM on March 14, 2011

anastasiav, he said they will provide accurate numbers so he isn't going to try and provide them off the top of his head while speaking. Nothing more than please check the publication for exact numbers.
posted by zengargoyle at 7:13 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

From earlier in this thread: Spent fuel rods are stored in pools at the top of the building around the reactor. If they're not cooled/submerged in water, they can catch fire.
posted by FelliniBlank at 7:13 PM on March 14, 2011

@zardoz: It means release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, of a more nasty kind than before as the fuel rods degrade into a variety of radioactive isotopes of varying nastiness (this is assuming that the cladding has broken down but that's likely when you're talking about an actual fire).
posted by Morbuto at 7:13 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Spent fuel is the really dirty stuff. Is it in the pool or the reactor? I'd guess pool, but I'm guessing.

This is bad because it's going to make it more dangerous to keep working there. Remember, they've already evacuated all but the people working on the pumps.

Damn.
posted by warbaby at 7:13 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Hundreds of mSv?!
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:14 PM on March 14, 2011

Where is all the water going??? What happened to the water at reactor 4 to get a fire going?? And did they not realize it was going somewhere?

Urgh....I hate feeling helpless! I'm so sorry Japan. I wish there was something I could do.
posted by MultiFaceted at 7:14 PM on March 14, 2011

Jeanne, what is burning then?
posted by Camofrog at 7:14 PM on March 14, 2011

@warbaby: in the pool, he did state there were none in the reactor. Though really it'd be better if they were in the shut down reactor...
posted by Morbuto at 7:14 PM on March 14, 2011

@Jeanne: if the fuel rods are not burning, they are creating hydrogen by reaction with the atmosphere which is burning.
posted by Morbuto at 7:16 PM on March 14, 2011

Jeanne, what is burning then?

Could be the building or something, but he seemed to clearly imply the heat source was the fule itself, implying that the cooling pool leaked.

I believe we may now be hoping that the building breaks apart in such a way that the fuel disperses itself. I would very much appreciate correction from more knowledgeable persons.
posted by mwhybark at 7:17 PM on March 14, 2011

@MultiFaceted: He said that debris from the No 3 reactor appears to have hit the storage pool at No 4, presumably causing the cooling water to get displaced.
posted by Morbuto at 7:17 PM on March 14, 2011

They have measured 400 milliSieverts/hr at the reactor. This is really bad.
posted by Jeanne at 7:17 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

@mwhybark: for now we are hoping that some heroic person fills up the water tank and that it is not damaged too much to hold the necessary water...
posted by Morbuto at 7:18 PM on March 14, 2011

Hundreds of mSv?!
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:14 PM on March 14 [+] [!]

Eponysterical?

Because I think an OHHHHH SHIIIIT is appropriate right about now.
posted by Asparagirl at 7:20 PM on March 14, 2011

Did he also just say there's a strong chance that the #2 reactor containment was damaged?
posted by FelliniBlank at 7:21 PM on March 14, 2011

The stuff is hot from internal decay, not neutron chain reaction. Though spreading it out might cool it some (more surface area), but we don't want this stuff spread around.

I think this is partly due to the previous evacuation of all but pumping staff and partly due to a lot of the instrumentation no longer working. That is an area nobody was going into.

FWIW, nobody knows whats going on. So don't jump to the conclusion there is information being withheld or people are lying. It's probable that there are a lot of conflicting opinions about how to interpret the tiny amount of available information. We're flying blind here.
posted by warbaby at 7:23 PM on March 14, 2011

Some regular sized robots with cameras would help, if only there was power to use them.
posted by nomisxid at 7:23 PM on March 14, 2011

For those looking for visual aids, check out this previously posted pdf. Sepcifically figure 2.1 which clearly shows the pools in question.

Going for the understatement of the decade award: This sucks.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:23 PM on March 14, 2011

@Jeanne: if the fuel rods are not burning, they are creating hydrogen by reaction with the atmosphere which is burning.

The hydrogen is created by reacting with water once the rods reach a certain temperature.
posted by delmoi at 7:23 PM on March 14, 2011

#4 fire, is building, not fuel related.
posted by zengargoyle at 7:24 PM on March 14, 2011

"the concrete itself is on fire, not the fuel rod...it is not the ideal environment for the fuel rod".
posted by nomisxid at 7:24 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

speaking of robots, why aren't they being used?
posted by angrycat at 7:24 PM on March 14, 2011

I concede the understatement of the year award to "it is not the ideal environment for the fuel rod"
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:25 PM on March 14, 2011 [21 favorites]

FelliniBlank, here's what TimeOutTokyo said he said about reactor #2:

"Regarding reactor 2. A blast was heard this morning. A hole was seen in the reactor."

Next tweet, which I assume but do not know to be a continuation of that:

"This happened to the suppression pools, and we assume that radiation has escaped."
posted by Flunkie at 7:25 PM on March 14, 2011

No angsty teenagers around to pilot the robots.
posted by zengargoyle at 7:26 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

ah. power, of course. I wish I could do more than ask dumb questions.
posted by angrycat at 7:26 PM on March 14, 2011

There's a lot of stuff producing a lot of heat.
posted by Flunkie at 7:27 PM on March 14, 2011

angrycat: speaking of robots, why aren't they being used?

They are being used in the rescue operations, at least. link
posted by schnee at 7:28 PM on March 14, 2011

absolutely serious (if naive) questions: Other than nuclear workers and the people at the hospital (and likely rescue workers) is there actually anyone left within 10K of the plant? The original evacuation order was almost 48 hours ago, wasn't it? Also, wasn't a large area around the plant was wiped out by the Tsunami?

Within 20K-30K what is the housing situation? I understand the Tsunami did not affect those areas, but how much infrastructure was damaged by the quake? Are the roads intact if people wanted to leave the area? Are there people who have, until now, been living outside in this area due to lack of safe shelter? If there is no power in this area are people going to be able to get this information in a timely manner?
posted by anastasiav at 7:28 PM on March 14, 2011

^ loquacious, you might have read that about the graphite in the Oehmen post (quoted by scalefree here).

Interestingly that post has since been moved to the MIT Nuclear Info Hub, and it's been modified. It no longer mentions the graphite.

The NYT also reported this morning that there is no graphite in the Fukushima containments (can't find the link, though).
posted by torticat at 7:28 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Wouldn't there need to be something producing a lot of heat for that to happen?

Decay heat is still a hell of a lot of heat, as I understand it.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 7:28 PM on March 14, 2011

Is there a graph or image of the 20km-30km area?
posted by cashman at 7:30 PM on March 14, 2011

Does anyone know of a Google Maps tool, or query, that shows the locations of American nuclear plants?

I'm specifically interested in the information superimposed onto (something like) Google Maps, rather than in a just plain map.
posted by Flunkie at 7:31 PM on March 14, 2011

Decay heat is still a hell of a lot of heat, as I understand it.

But no. 4 was out of service at the time of the earthquake. Could it be decay heat from before that? As in, it had been taken out of service, but not long before the quake?
posted by neal at 7:31 PM on March 14, 2011

So then the inference would be that the spent fuel rod pool in #4 has been compromised enough for the fuel's heat to set fire to the concrete building but not enough to catch fire itself . . . ?
posted by FelliniBlank at 7:32 PM on March 14, 2011

I don't think the fire is from the spent fuel rods, I think it was ignited by one of the explosions at the other reactors.
posted by Jeanne at 7:33 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Ah, I get it.
posted by FelliniBlank at 7:34 PM on March 14, 2011

If the fire didn't involve the spent fuel rods, they wouldn't be saying it's caused the elevated radiation levels would they?
posted by polyhedron at 7:34 PM on March 14, 2011

"100 milli sieverts are enough to make a human male infertile"
posted by Flunkie at 7:34 PM on March 14, 2011

I believe the report of concrete on fire was a transcription error by the Timeout guys... I was listening live to the press conference and noticed no mention of that, though there was a slightly confused statement saying that they think there was a similar situation going on at reactor 4 as caused the explosions at reactors 3 and 1, that is the reaction of the fuel rod cladding with the water in the atmosphere (or in a worse scenario the water the fuel rods are immersed in, if the heat is raised enough at the water boundary).
posted by Morbuto at 7:35 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yes, implication is that #4 fire caused by explosion at other plant. Plenty of machinery (oils, seals, walls, furniture, etc) to burn in a building and not be OMG fuel rods melting and concrete burning.
posted by zengargoyle at 7:35 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Increased radiation levels could come from anything that's inside of the building that may have accrued radiation over time being released by fire. Like piles of radiation suits, dust, etc that was all contained within the building before the fire.
posted by zengargoyle at 7:38 PM on March 14, 2011

Here's a slightly different analysis on 100 millisieverts.
posted by birdsquared at 7:39 PM on March 14, 2011

NHK is saying that there is a possibility that some spent fuel rods are exposed, spent fuel caused hydrogen explosion and that may be source of fire.
posted by polyhedron at 7:39 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

NHK has just restated that it was stated to be hydrogen from spent fuel cells in reactor 4 spent fuel storage causing the fire. They are speculating that this may imply that the water level may have been reduced to below the stored spent fuel cells.
posted by Morbuto at 7:40 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

What floam said. I appreciate live news threads and often spend a lot of time in them, but I have been reluctant to post here or in the other thread because natural disasters and nuclear energy are both subjects I don't know very much about.

There are people posting here who are obviously better informed than me in this regard; I prefer to let them speak, and I suggest you do likewise.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:42 PM on March 14, 2011

Reference point: Google search on "100 millisieverts."
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:43 PM on March 14, 2011

TimeOutTokyo 'Reactor 1 & 3 had their walls and ceilings blown off, but things seem to have fallen into reactor 4.'
33 minutes ago

That can't be good.
posted by karst at 7:44 PM on March 14, 2011

Morbuto: "NHK has just restated that it was stated to be hydrogen from spent fuel cells in reactor 4 spent fuel storage causing the fire. They are speculating that this may imply that the water level may have been reduced to below the stored spent fuel cells"

Thank you Morbuto, that's what I heard too.
posted by mwhybark at 7:45 PM on March 14, 2011

I believe I also heard that there are active firecrews on #4, it was implied and then there was a question about protective gear for those guys.
posted by mwhybark at 7:47 PM on March 14, 2011

Seismic activity and US nuclear power
posted by ofthestrait at 7:53 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Japan Faces Prospect of Nuclear Catastrophe as Workers Leave Plant NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?hp
posted by dripped at 7:53 PM on March 14, 2011

Regarding robots, when they used them in Chernobyl they were of extremely limited use due to the debris and terrain involved.

They also stopped working after only a short amount of time due to the incredible amount of radiation. It actually fried the electronics and ability to control them remotely.

While robots have improved a lot since then, and we're not dealing with the same amounts of radiation as Chernobyl, but robots are actually really hard to use effectively in chaotic debris-strewn environments. The kinds of legged and tracked robots we have today that handle unstable terrain are mainly experimental or research devices.

What would be awesome is some kind of powered exoskelelton that could be piloted by a human. It could be armored and hardened against radiation in a way a human in a suit couldn't be, with air filtration or air/oxygen package. It might be possible to make the control system purely out of hydraulics or pneumatic controls that aren't electronic, and have it be self-powered with a gas engine or turbine. Then a human could be right there with their own eyes and a better sense of feedback than a robot controlled remotely by a camera and joystick.
posted by loquacious at 7:54 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

KML for US nuclear facilities
posted by ofthestrait at 7:54 PM on March 14, 2011

Someone upthread asked so I made up this map of the various exclusion zones on the first Google hit that came up for "draw circles in google maps."

Red's the evacuation zone, yellow is where you just have to stay inside. Sorry it's a static image file, I couldn't remember my Maps API key and they won't let you direct link to a map if you have more than one shape drawn. It'll give a general idea until someone makes/links to a better one.
posted by jackflaps at 7:55 PM on March 14, 2011

Off topic, but the incongruity of furiosxgeiorge's "Don't panic" at the top of this page, with "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" at the bottom, strikes me every time I return to this thread.
posted by karst at 7:56 PM on March 14, 2011

I'll ask again since it was ignored the first time: can anyone give an idea of whether there is risk of dangerous radiation in central Tokyo in a worst-case scenario? Is it possible/probable for it to travel that far if the wind was pointing the right direction? Surely at least something is known about this?
posted by brightghost

Just a note to brightghost - don't feel ignored. I think the reason nobody answered before is that we don't know. Very few of us have any reliable knowledge in this area (I don't) and a lot of the people here are general purpose engineers or science people who are trying to puzzle out what information they can find, eg looking at old articles from science journals to try to get up to speed. And even if we did have general knowledge, there's so much uncertainty about what's actually going on, that I think people don't want to give you wrong information about your very important and very practical question. I wish someone did know enough to answer in a well-grounded way, but if nobody does, it's better that they not answer in a half-guess way.
posted by LobsterMitten at 7:58 PM on March 14, 2011 [6 favorites]

off topic: "Bill Gates Invests in Small Reactor Technology"
posted by clavdivs at 8:00 PM on March 14, 2011

Regarding robots, when they used them in Chernobyl they were of extremely limited use due to the debris and terrain involved.

Yeah our robots are a lot better at this point. The problem, though is that there aren't a lot of ready to go high-tech robots designed for situations like this. Robots are typically designed specifically for various tasks or for research labs. The problem is the research bots are probably not radiation hardened.

It's really frustrating. It sounds like, if it wasn't for the fact that the radiation is dangerous and you can't operate in it very easily. If you could just grab a hose and some water trucks, you could probably just pump pure water into the core, but the fact that you can't really approach it probably makes it really difficult.
posted by delmoi at 8:00 PM on March 14, 2011

I would love-love-love-love an answer to brightghost's question, but it makes me very happy that nobody has answered it because nobody knows, instead of various people taking a stab based on their general science knowledge.
posted by Bugbread at 8:00 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

Obviously don't panic is the right thing to do but being so dismissive of potentialities was a mistake. Let's leave that in MetaTalk.
posted by polyhedron at 8:00 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Brightspot, good question.

TimeOutTokyo NHK: The wind at Fukushima is currently blowing from east to west.
5 minutes ago

If I was Anderson Cooper, I'd be out of Sendai.
posted by karst at 8:01 PM on March 14, 2011

The problem is the research bots are probably not radiation hardened.

Indeed unlikely given that a current generation RAD750 costs ~$200,000 per board.
posted by nomisxid at 8:03 PM on March 14, 2011

What would be awesome is some kind of powered exoskelelton that could be piloted by ~~a human~~ BILLIONAIRE PLAYBOY TONY STARK
posted by staggernation at 8:03 PM on March 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

Off topic, but the incongruity of furiosxgeiorge's "Don't panic" at the top of this page, with "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" at the bottom, strikes me every time I return to this thread.

I'm barely holding my fudge.

*dons brown trousers, relaxes noticeably*
posted by loquacious at 8:04 PM on March 14, 2011

I just want to say how much I appreciate all of the analysis, reporting, and translating going on here. This is big and scary and hard to wrap my head around, and these threads here help.
posted by Forktine at 8:06 PM on March 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

Most overused American media phrase of 2011: "If that's true, that's bad news."
posted by Dr. Zira at 8:07 PM on March 14, 2011

Off topic, but the incongruity of furiosxgeiorge's "Don't panic" at the top of this page, with "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" at the bottom, strikes me every time I return to this thread.

I feel that way watching a realtime twitter reader, which intersperses every twitter account I'm following:

"Reactor #4 is on fire."

"High levels of radiation have been detected."

"Battle: Los Angeles is a crappy movie!"

"Get inside a concrete building immediately. Do not use air conditioning. Do not open windows."
posted by Flunkie at 8:08 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

This is surely naive of me, but given that the local diesel generators at the plant are knocked out, how hard could it be to fly-in (eg. by US military chopper) a couple replacements?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:09 PM on March 14, 2011

Zenmaster, what I can't figure out is why they used seawater when fresh water could be flown in.
posted by karst at 8:11 PM on March 14, 2011

I don't know if anyone would know this about Japanese first responders, but what's the American/European policy for letting people know if a situation is likely to kill them? When do you decide to very probably risk your crew's life?
posted by codacorolla at 8:11 PM on March 14, 2011

The Australian anti-nuclear lobby (read: almost all Aussie politicians and most people i know) are using this as yet more evidence for their smug, anti-nuclear, anti-tech stance
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 8:12 PM on March 14, 2011

There are conflicting reports as to why they weren't able to plug in additional generators, with the most believable scenario being that the equipment rooms that would be the site for such a hook up were too badly damaged.

You couldn't possibly fly in enough fresh water to cool a reactor.
posted by nomisxid at 8:12 PM on March 14, 2011

The problem is that once the power failed things started breaking and melting down, probably within hours. Even if they had power they couldn't use it because the pumps are broken now.
posted by psyche7 at 8:12 PM on March 14, 2011

That question was asked above and the only answer we've found has been "they brought in replacement generators but they couldn't get them connected" either because the plugs didn't fit or they use the wrong type of electricity or the power-connection room was in the basement and flooded with mud. But we don't have what I would consider to be a good confirmed answer to that question yet.
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:12 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

The Australian anti-nuclear lobby (read: almost all Aussie politicians and most people i know) are using this as yet more evidence for their smug, anti-nuclear, anti-tech stance

Please, let's not do this right now.
posted by dialetheia at 8:13 PM on March 14, 2011 [24 favorites]

ZenMasterThis: in my extremely naive mind I was wondering why they couldn't carefully dump a bambi bucket of water on #4. I know that can't be possible because I thought of it and this situation is way more complicated than I can even begin to think about, but it did pop into my head.
posted by MultiFaceted at 8:13 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's likely that it'll take months and/or years to really sort out what exactly happened, in what sequence and for what reasons.
posted by rainy at 8:15 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure you could just plug any generator set into the plant infrastructure, even if the latter was undamaged (which is unlikely). It's probable that you'd need a highly specific customized set, with specific output. There aren't domestic/industrial appliances.
posted by carter at 8:15 PM on March 14, 2011

Yes, from my limited reading of the accident mitigation literature it appears that the recommended procedure is to get the reactor back into acceptable temperature/pressure scenarios then restart the pump systems if possible. There are multiple pump systems suitable for different pressures.
A piece of good news, at Fukushima Daini they have now reported success in restoring the cooling pumps to all the reactors there after they replaced some of the pump motors.
posted by Morbuto at 8:16 PM on March 14, 2011

Please, let's not do this right now.

Yes, really. Please.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:16 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

carter: I'm sure there was a plan for generators failing. Maybe not a 100% solid plan but some kind of plan.
posted by rainy at 8:17 PM on March 14, 2011

I mean a backup plan of course.
posted by rainy at 8:18 PM on March 14, 2011

Oh crud, I looked at the geiger counter graph link flapjax posted, and since 10 o'clock on the graph it's gone from under 20 to around 70 cpm.
posted by zippy at 8:18 PM on March 14, 2011

I'm not sure you could just plug any generator set into the plant infrastructure
Looking for link just now, apparently they had exactly that problem a few days ago -- generators with the wrong connections.
posted by bonaldi at 8:18 PM on March 14, 2011

Kyodo news reporting fire is out at reactor 4
posted by karst at 8:20 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Kanagawa showed radiation 9x normal a half hour ago.
posted by karst at 8:23 PM on March 14, 2011

Oh crud, I looked at the geiger counter graph link flapjax posted, and since 10 o'clock on the graph it's gone from under 20 to around 70 cpm.

It looks like 12.01 to me.
posted by delmoi at 8:23 PM on March 14, 2011

Kyodo news reporting fire is out at reactor 4

Great news!
posted by cashman at 8:23 PM on March 14, 2011

You can help reduce load on the graph website by linking directly to the graph itself, which is updating with the same .jpg name.
posted by woodblock100 at 8:24 PM on March 14, 2011

ZenMasterThis: in my extremely naive mind I was wondering why they couldn't carefully dump a bambi bucket of water on #4. I know that can't be possible because I thought of it and this situation is way more complicated than I can even begin to think about, but it did pop into my head.

Like a helicopter or plane drop?
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:24 PM on March 14, 2011

@rainy: unfortunately the plans were a little optimistic: http://www.ansn-jp.org/jneslibrary/AccidentManagement.pdf, for example there was an assumption that with multiple reactors in close proximity not all of them would fail at the same time and therefore they would be able to draw power from the other reactors, and of course the assumption that the flood wall would hold and that 4 generators would provide sufficient redundancy.

With my very limited understanding and hindsight it does appear that there was a little too much reliance on (bad) statistics of the sort "this and this and this all happening simultaneously could only happen once in a trillion years", not taking into account that in the case of an earth quake followed by a tsunami they were not independent variables.

I am sure questions will also be asked as to why sensible suggestions for improving the safety of these reactors in unexpected scenarios were not implemented, such as a filter bypass system that might have prevented the leakage of hydrogen into the reactor building leading to the explosions.

Of course, that's easy to say in hindsight.
posted by Morbuto at 8:25 PM on March 14, 2011

Like a helicopter or plane drop?

Yes, that's what I was thinking. I may have used the wrong terminology though.
posted by MultiFaceted at 8:27 PM on March 14, 2011

I'm no expert, but I would NOT fly a freaking helicopter with a huge bucket of water slung under it right above a nuclear reactor, even in the best of conditions.

It's just not a good idea. I'd be surprised if there weren't rules against it. Good rules, with good reasoning that despite the current situation I can't see a reason to breach. Besides, one of those buckets of water drenching the reactor is not the type of cooling they desperately need. I'll stop here and please forgive me if my tone is a bit curt, I'm not trying to be rude, just concise.
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:28 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

As a basic rule, a nuclear plant has triple redundancy, like NASA. I have been in one completed plant and one under construction, some of the most complex engineering humans have done.
posted by clavdivs at 8:29 PM on March 14, 2011

Ok, so I have a question that may be very stupid, and this may not be the time to ask it, and if so, fair enough. But theoretically what would have happened if the reactors had stayed active when the tsunami hit? Is there any way that if they had stayed "on" through the earthquake and tsunami they could have continued to provide power to the pumps needed to keep the reactor cool?

I'm sure there's a good reason why that would be impossible, but I'm curious.
posted by threeturtles at 8:31 PM on March 14, 2011

did not a U.S helecopter and crew get low dose?-yes, it's in the news...they have moved the carrier group down-wind. This is serious.
posted by clavdivs at 8:32 PM on March 14, 2011

RolandOfEld: I fully embrace the fact that my idea was probably too stupid to consider, but it did make me wonder if there was anything similar that could be done. Hell, I was even imagining a ginormous fire truck or something. No apologies needed.

I do apologize for injecting my unfiltered thoughts into the thread though. My brain sometimes goes before I can stop it.
posted by MultiFaceted at 8:32 PM on March 14, 2011

threeturtles, not an expert but if the reactor is live and the turbines are damaged you now have a critical reactor to cool, as opposed to the current situation.
posted by polyhedron at 8:33 PM on March 14, 2011

threeturtles: I asked the same question upthread, search for my name and ye shall find.
posted by anthill at 8:33 PM on March 14, 2011

I'm sure there's a good reason why that would be impossible, but I'm curious.
posted by threeturtles

try pouring molten aluminum on a see-saw.
posted by clavdivs at 8:34 PM on March 14, 2011

@threeturtles: the trouble is that with the reactor active you have to manage 10 times the energy output, and if anything got damaged during the earthquake you would have a much more difficult situation to control. So it is assumed to be safer to shut down the uranium reaction as quickly as possible.
posted by Morbuto at 8:34 PM on March 14, 2011

Worst Nightmare? Nuclear meltdown threat as Fukushima fuel rods 'fully exposed'
posted by nickyskye at 8:35 PM on March 14, 2011

To be fair, they did use helicopters to drop material on Chernobyl, the question wasn't that naive.
posted by nomisxid at 8:35 PM on March 14, 2011 [6 favorites]

Is there any way that if they had stayed "on" through the earthquake and tsunami they could have continued to provide power to the pumps needed to keep the reactor cool?

Perhaps, but then they would have been in a dangerous situation (no external AC, no generator power) had the reactors then needed to be shut down, because they would be at their normal operating temperature at failure, rather than having been cooling for an hour, and with no backup systems in place for keeping the water flowing. Never mind that the operators may have had to evacuate during the tsunami, and they couldn't have known in advance whether or not this would be necessary.
posted by zippy at 8:36 PM on March 14, 2011

Is there any way that if they had stayed "on" through the earthquake and tsunami they could have continued to provide power to the pumps needed to keep the reactor cool?

anthill asked this basic question upthread. I don't think it is possible. I think once the power grid is taken down by the Tsunami, they have to go into emergency shutdown right away regardless. There is just too much power available at that point, and no where to put it.
posted by Chuckles at 8:36 PM on March 14, 2011

threeturtles: as I understand it, it's possible that they could have stayed "on" through the earthquake (e.g. the reactor wasn't scram'd) and everything might have worked fine. The reason they don't do that is that if the reactor is damaged enough by the earthquake, it could lead to a criticality accident, which would be a major disaster that could be very difficult to stop, especially if the plant was damaged in the earthquake/tsunami. Turning the plant "off" right away is the standard practice as it at least stops the chain reaction.
posted by zachlipton at 8:37 PM on March 14, 2011

Thanks anthill and others. For what are probably self-evident reasons, I didn't read the whole of this thread, so I missed that.
posted by threeturtles at 8:40 PM on March 14, 2011

In Chernobyl they dropped bismuth? on the core in an attempt to shut down the core. That being said, this is a completely different reactor which actually has an intact? containment unit. Even if a helicopter was to fly over the reactor it seems unlikely that it could actually drop anything in a location that wouldn't do more damage than good.
posted by vuron at 8:41 PM on March 14, 2011

I would think a flyover water drop would be a last ditch attempt to keep the temporary storage from catching light, and not so much for the reactor core.
posted by Zalzidrax at 8:43 PM on March 14, 2011

Nomisxid: To be fair pretty much everything they did regarding Chernobyl was on the far end of the 'not intelligent, do not duplicate, it causes problems for everyone' scale. Including, apparently, having to hover helicopters over nuclear reactors.

And for the umpteenth time, the situation is still not Chernobyl levels and I can't think of a faster way to get there than crashing a helicopter into the plant.
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:44 PM on March 14, 2011

I was thinking the helicopter could drop water on Reactor 4 to put out that fire. Like a wildfire or something.
posted by MultiFaceted at 8:44 PM on March 14, 2011

Any update on the status of #2? Do they know what the status of the containment vessel is?
posted by schmod at 8:45 PM on March 14, 2011

*like they do for a wildfire..

I'll go to bed now.
posted by MultiFaceted at 8:45 PM on March 14, 2011

Digging around a little, I found this site for the readings at Onagawa, and this for readings near Niigata. I don't know how frequently Niigata updates, (it's not rendering in proper Japanese for Camino), but Onagawa looks to update every 6 hours.

Both found at this site.
posted by birdsquared at 8:48 PM on March 14, 2011

Thanks for the response, LobsterMitten (and others). I understand people wouldn't want to answer my question without being properly informed, and I thank them for that. It seems that earlier this thread had a number of people who were well-informed on the science in question (eriko, etc.) but they seem to have all cleared out. I'm just very frustrated and frazzled here trying to figure out what is best for my sister, and it is especially frustrating that I can't seem to find any news that addresses the potential risk in Tokyo (other than the official line, which doesn't seem to extend beyond "Tokyo is safe for now").
posted by brightghost at 8:53 PM on March 14, 2011

Harmful levels of radiation leaking from Japanese nuclear plant

Time Out tweet within the last hour:

"Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said."

"NHK: The problem with the fire is that the smoke will carry the radiation up to 30km away."

"Once again, the list of towns currently needing evacuation. Tamura-ku, Minami Souma Shi, Hirono Machi, Naraha-cho, Tomioka-cho, Ookuma-cho, Futaba-cho, Namie-cho, Katsurao-cho, Iidate Mura, Iwaki Shi (northeast area)"

"NHK: If you are in those areas, brush yourself down thoroughly - hair, clothes, skin - before going inside. Once inside, wash thoroughly."

"NHK: Do not use air conditioning or heating, and if your laundry is outside, leave it there."

"NHK: If you are at work, stay inside. If you are outside, get inside a concrete building immediately."

"New info on reactor 4: There were no active rods inside, but the spent rods were in pools at the base of the container. These pools are heating and they may have caused a hydrogen explosion and may be leaking radiation (NHK)"

"NHK: The wind at Fukushima is currently blowing from east to west."

"NHK says 50 workers are operating the plant now, obviously wearing protective clothing."
posted by nickyskye at 8:56 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Karst: "Zenmaster, what I can't figure out is why they used seawater when fresh water could be flown in."

They're right next to an ocean. On purpose, for just this reason. Flying fresh water in instead of using seawater would be like...I dunno...if you were freezing to death, deciding that instead of warming yourself by a campfire 10 feet away, you would walk 10 miles to a nice centrally heated house.
posted by Bugbread at 8:59 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

I believe the TimeOutTokyo tweet about the wind direction is outdated; I think the wind was shifting south (toward Tokyo) as of a little while ago. But again, I don't know how much stuff will be carried by the wind or how far.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:01 PM on March 14, 2011

Off-topic perhaps, but the Nikkei and Topix financial indices are down 10% and still declining on the news.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:03 PM on March 14, 2011

re: Chernobyl, I don't think control efforts post-accident were ever criticized, though. After criticality and without any containment structure, there weren't any clever moves left. They did what they could and prevented molten core from reaching water table, which would be much worse than what did happen.
posted by rainy at 9:04 PM on March 14, 2011

Wrong, bugbread. Seawater inside the reactor isn't desirable. It's sorta like using pee instead of antifreeze. Seawater IS used to cool the coolant, but not as coolant itself.

Seawater in the reactor isn't in the playbook.
posted by karst at 9:04 PM on March 14, 2011

They're right next to an ocean. On purpose, for just this reason. Flying fresh water in instead of using seawater would be like...I dunno...if you were freezing to death, deciding that instead of warming yourself by a campfire 10 feet away, you would walk 10 miles to a nice centrally heated house.

Yeah, but as seawater evaporates, it will leave salt behind. If the seawater boils off the reactor core would get clogged with salt.
posted by delmoi at 9:05 PM on March 14, 2011

Reuters liveblog, Factbox: Aid and rescue offers, and this Der Spiegel I-131 model and Weather risk article.

Always better to have something besides primordial dread to ruminate.
posted by Twang at 9:07 PM on March 14, 2011

anthil writes: The graph [of TEPCO radiation measurements] shows four spikes - anyone want to identify them?

I compared this against my draft timeline for Fukushima-1 Unit-1 events as announced by TEPCO (it only covers through the 12th).

The first spike occurs at the time (3/12/2011 11:40am) Touruma says rods were exposed by 90 - 170cm. The second looks like it matches TEPCO's announcement of an extraordinary increase in radiation at the site boundary, the rise occurring at at 3/13/2011 8:56am
posted by zippy at 9:08 PM on March 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

brightghost: I really wish I can give you a better answer, but I just don't think we can. Right now, Tokyo appears safe. You can see that the Tokyo geiger counter reading is falling back toward normal (background) levels. NHK is reporting that there haven't been significant changes at the plant lately. As I understand it, the reading was still many times less than would be encountered in an international airline flight. In terms of the potential future risk for Tokyo, I don't think we have any information to answer that question. If we did, this would all be a lot easier. All of Tokyo seems to be wondering the same thing right now.
posted by zachlipton at 9:08 PM on March 14, 2011

IANANE, but if you can't build a reactor next to a large source of fresh water, building by the ocean has some value because as an absolute last resort, you use the seawater and give up on ever using that reactor again.

Flying or shipping water in a disaster like this is obviously not tenable, and maintaining a sufficient store of fresh water may not have been feasible. From what I've seen, I suspect putting the diesel generators on higher ground rather than trusting in the seawall would have been of more value.
posted by maudlin at 9:10 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

Seawater in the reactor isn't in the playbook.

Judging by the reactions we heard far upthread about this play, I'm pretty sure it is. It's not a nice play. The corrosion the salts in the seawater will cause to the metals at that high temperature will ensure that this reactor will probably never see service again. And if a company is willing to destroy their power plant, they probably have a really good reason. Because if they don't use this play, things are going to be very bad.
posted by chemoboy at 9:10 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

They have been using seawater as coolant, in the reactor itself, haven't they? As a last-ditch measure which they know will wreck the tubing etc of the reactor, irreparably fouling it.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:12 PM on March 14, 2011

"NHK: If you are at work, stay inside. If you are outside, get inside a concrete building immediately."

Why do they specify "concrete buildings"? What are the other ones made of and why wouldn't they be as good?
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:13 PM on March 14, 2011

Why do they specify "concrete buildings"? What are the other ones made of and why wouldn't they be as good?
I imagine concrete is better at blocking radiation than, say, wood. Thicker and denser. A lead-lined house would be best...
posted by BungaDunga at 9:15 PM on March 14, 2011

Concrete is dense and offers greater protection from gamma rays than wood.
posted by dw at 9:15 PM on March 14, 2011

@Joe: Possibly because the water molecules trapped in the concrete matrix stop neutron radiation better than other materials.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:16 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

If all you have access to is seawater...you use it. Ideal? No. But what are your other options? This isn't a video game. Real people in a crisis situation are trying to make life saving decisions.
posted by futz at 9:16 PM on March 14, 2011

Easy reactor question: Best case scenario, how can this end? Do they just need to keep cooling the reactors forever, or do they cool it to a certain point, and then it all comes to a rest state, or do they cool it to a certain point and then disassemble it?
posted by Bugbread at 9:16 PM on March 14, 2011

> From what I've seen, I suspect putting the diesel generators on higher ground rather than trusting in the seawall would have been of more value.

Except at this state we don't know what knocked out the generators, could have been damage to the fuel system (or containmenated fuel) or the local damage was enough to break the power control circuits. And it sounds like at this part a lot of the more delicate machines that are required to run the emergency cooling systems may have suffered damage to the point of not being able to function properly either.

It's a very big, very hot, running and spinning machine, and people are risking (and have risked) their lives to fix it or get it under control. And a lot of the tools built around to contain it are starting to fail. It's tremendously scary and chilling.
posted by mrzarquon at 9:16 PM on March 14, 2011

When in doubt, wiki. That looks like a decent article.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:16 PM on March 14, 2011

Concrete will shield you from fallout better than wood.

BTW, does anyone know exactly what is causing the radioactivity?
posted by KokuRyu at 9:16 PM on March 14, 2011

zachlipton in the other thread says winds are heading west not south now.

Asparagirl posts: "Opportunity to help: volunteers fluent in both English and Japanese are needed at Babelverse.com"
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:17 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Various forms of radiation would presumably be able to penetrate wood houses too easily. Concrete should be able to contain/reflect some of that radiation.
posted by vuron at 9:17 PM on March 14, 2011

That timeline is fantastic, zippy.
posted by yeolcoatl at 9:17 PM on March 14, 2011

Yes, injection of water from any available water source is in the severe accident management playbook: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/22/073/22073304.pdf (roughly page 52)... though this is for Germany where usually you're next to a river rather than the ocean, so the water is not quite as bad.
posted by Morbuto at 9:19 PM on March 14, 2011

• Make this an active thread. (done)
posted by five fresh fish at 9:19 PM on March 14, 2011

Seawater in the reactor isn't in the playbook.
posted by karst at 12:04 AM on March 15

It is now.
posted by futz at 9:21 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Cliff Mass, third post on potential dispersal to the PNW.

"From virtually a point source, the radiation would mix through huge volumes of the atmosphere due to horizontal and vertical mixing. Since it would take days to reach us, there would be time for larger particles to settle out and precipitation would wash some out as well. Even for Chernobyl, where the core exploded while the reactor was powered up and where there was no containment, serious radiation only extended roughly 1000 km away.

The Northwest is more than 7000 km away!"
posted by mwhybark at 9:21 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

Bugbread: they only need to cool it until a certain point - not indefinitely. The articles linked above talk about it taking a matter of days to cool enough, if they had the normal type of cooling situation. They announced earlier today that some of the other reactors at - I think - the Daina plant had reached the state of cool shutdown (or similar term). I'm not sure what happens after that though.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:21 PM on March 14, 2011

The fuel rods are made of radioisotopes. The control rods absorb radiation, and were fully inserted into the reactor. The whole thing is melting down, so it is possible that the reaction rate is increasing.

What about the containment vessel. If there is a breach, how are radioactive particles being carried into the environment?
posted by KokuRyu at 9:22 PM on March 14, 2011

The best place to build these reactors is actually underground. That way, if they do melt down they just sit there, and don't leak out.
posted by delmoi at 9:22 PM on March 14, 2011

One question I didn't get clearly answered by arclight is whether the boron they've been putting in there will moderate the reaction in the event of control rod failure. He seemed to suggest so.
posted by polyhedron at 9:22 PM on March 14, 2011

At a certain point the reactor will cool to the normal decay temperature. At that point in time the operators would be able to assess the reactor and begin plans for cleaning out the fuel rods and dismantling the unit. Other parts of the reactor containment will likely remain in place until the entire site is decommisioned at some future date.

That's my understanding based upon how the TMI partial meltdown was handled.

If for some reason we end up with a massive meltdown that brings the core out of the reactor containment then they would probably have to pump in some sort of support matrix to prevent the molten fuel from entering the water table/ocean.
posted by vuron at 9:22 PM on March 14, 2011

Japan's financial sector is in freefall, having shed 1/8 of its value so far today...

•Japanese Stocks Head for Record Two-Day Loss as Radiation Risk Increases

•Bank of Japan Fails to Contain Investor Panic as Nuclear Danger Escalates

•Treasuries Jump in `Violent' Rally as Kan Warns of Further Radiation Leaks
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:23 PM on March 14, 2011

winds are moving south and west at the moment but within 36 hours they will turn eastward and strengthen, and stay that way for a few days, so says the GFS Ensemble.
posted by Mach5 at 9:25 PM on March 14, 2011

@Bugbear: So long as the rods are covered in water, the residual "heat" (radioactive decay from radioactive isotopes generated by uranium fission) will decay, first fairly quickly over a period of days to a safe state, then you're still talking a month or more until you'd want to go near it.

I'm no nuclear expert, but here's my understanding based on a few papers I have read, so please take with the appropriate grain of salt:

Unfortunately, with the rods exposed above the cooling water there is the very worrying possibility of the fuel rod / control rod assemblies melting, then dropping to the bottom of the reactor vessel and potentially melting through the bottom. Then they drop onto the concrete below (or worse into the suppression pool torus), where the molten mass or uranium / other isotopes / control rods / metal (corium) would react with the concrete, creating very large amounts of radioactive gases which the plant in its current state would have a difficult time to contain.

An open question is whether the plant has a fire suppression system in the secondary containment and whether this is still operational... If it is this has been shown in simulations to reduce the amount of radioactive particles escaping from the secondary considerably. (If there isn't one, the helicopter suggestion above might look appealing at this point).

So for now it's really fingers crossed that they manage to keep enough water in the vessel to stop the bottom melting.
posted by Morbuto at 9:28 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

No prob dude. I'll stop now.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:28 PM on March 14, 2011

they would probably have to pump in some sort of support matrix to prevent the molten fuel from entering the water table/ocean.

At Chernobyl they pumped in liquid nitrogen for a while, then settled for concrete:

With the bubbler pool gone, a meltdown was less likely to produce a powerful steam explosion. To do so, the molten core would now have to reach the water table below the reactor. To reduce the likelihood of this, it was decided to freeze the earth beneath the reactor, which would also stabilize the foundations. Using oil drilling equipment, injection of liquid nitrogen began on 4 May. It was estimated that 25 metric tons of liquid nitrogen per day would be required to keep the soil frozen at −100 °C.[5]:59 This idea was soon scrapped and the bottom room where the cooling system would have been installed was filled with concrete.

Again, if the melted core hits a large body of water, you get a steam explosion that sends radioactive material into the environment much more violently than what we're seeing now.
posted by mediareport at 9:28 PM on March 14, 2011

Actually, I have no idea how large the body of water has to be.
posted by mediareport at 9:28 PM on March 14, 2011

LobsterMitten: "They have been using seawater as coolant, in the reactor itself, haven't they? As a last-ditch measure which they know will wreck the tubing etc of the reactor, irreparably fouling it"

Yes. I know you were responding to another poster's assertion.

Everyone, especially newcomers: I know this is a long-ass thread, as is the parent. There is a great deal of useful real-time information available in them. Please consider reading them both all the way through.

We have known for, what, two days, that seawater is being used directly on the interiors of #1 and #3, the plants that both eventually experienced hydrogen explosions that wrecked the roof and upper structure of their buildings.

We do not know that seawater was used in #4, and I would be surprised to learn that it had been before today's fire.

I cannot recall if we had heard that seawater was in use on the interior of #2, which is the most-recently contructed of 1, 2 and 3. I haven't done any homework on 4 because there was no indication of anomaly or risk associated with it since the quake in the publicly available information presented by TEPCO or any other source that I am aware of.
posted by mwhybark at 9:29 PM on March 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

And zippy, that timeline is invaluable.
posted by mwhybark at 9:34 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

NYT article
posted by delmoi at 9:36 PM on March 14, 2011

Seconding mwhybark. It's just plain confusing enough around here as it is. We've seen several people, even lil 'ole me, who have benefited from/thanked people for the insight into the tech details of the event that are unfolding.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:41 PM on March 14, 2011

Again, if the melted core hits a large body of water, you get a steam explosion that sends radioactive material into the environment much more violently than what we're seeing now.

It's my understanding that temperature & pressure of the water are the determining factor here. The higher the pressure is, the higher the boiling point will be & the harder it is to flash vaporize it. Or in the case of one of the earlier incidents some years ago (forget which one offhand), they froze the ground under the melting core to keep the water temp down below it too low to boil.
posted by scalefree at 9:42 PM on March 14, 2011

Any amount of stuff at the site could be a source of radioactive particulate matter. Old paper suits, steam from the fire dropping into the spent rods bath, concrete dust near the #2 breech.

IOW burning collateral materials probably caused the short spike in radiation measured downwind.

#4 is "turned off." The fire is out/controlled, the core is safe and cool. Spent rods in storage may be exposed and crap has fallen into them. SNAFU, but controlled.

Containment on #2 is breeched. I think, though, that this is *secondary* containment: the primary vessel is still okay. I could be wrong: maybe there's a gaping hole clear through to the rods.

In any case, it seems that they're currently able to keep water on most of the core in all of the reactors. If they work fast, they'll be able to confirm that the fail-mode systems are ready for a full failure.

By my reading of the media stream, it remains very unlikely that this nuclear disaster will become more than a "local" event.

This is a disaster, but one that is still 1000s of times less bad than Chernobyl. This is more like a really bad Three Mile Island. Or a Centralia.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:44 PM on March 14, 2011

For Fukushima-1 Unit 1, seawater was first 'injected' into the reactor at on 3/12/2011 at 20:20 local time according to this TEPCO announcement. Boric acid was added sometime soon after.
posted by zippy at 9:45 PM on March 14, 2011

Can't put my cursor on on a link to the previously cited Kyodo report that No. 4 fire is out, sling it of you got it and try to include links for newsources as they scroll by, please.

Thanks for the backup, RolandofEld.
posted by mwhybark at 9:46 PM on March 14, 2011

@codacorolla: I don't know if anyone would know this about Japanese first responders, but what's the American/European policy for letting people know if a situation is likely to kill them? When do you decide to very probably risk your crew's life?

I don't think it's a matter of policy. The command decision to expose personnel to risk is a factor in almost any emergency, and the officer's greatest responsibility is to make as sure as can be that the risk is justified. This is a dynamic thing, and the risk elements can change at any time.
posted by maniabug at 9:46 PM on March 14, 2011

A tremendous amount of resources needed for emergency response, engineering, and logistical support, not to mention actual energy, are being diverted to the attempt to contain this situation at a time when Japan can ill afford it. In this sense these reactors are catastrophe multipliers. If the quake had been less severe, these resources would be free to deal with the humanitarian crisis -- but then, of course, there would have been less of one. If on the other hand a meltdown situation had begun to develop in the absence of a natural disaster, they would have been in a much better place to deal with it -- but then it would probably have never been an issue. As things stand now they are trying to deal with two very grave problems at once: one humanitarian, and one radiological. But what really gets me is that it seems things did not have the potential to get this bad until they got very, very bad, but when they did, the nature of the infrastructure made it very likely (if not inevitable) that things would get much worse.
I am struggling to imagine what it's like for those brave people who are inside the Fukushima complex at this moment, trying to think and act and deal under those circumstances, and I'm failing. They are putting their lives on the line to confront one of the worst emergency engineering scenarios that anyone could possibly face. It's a much-abused term, but -- they are real heroes.
posted by $0up at 9:49 PM on March 14, 2011 [12 favorites]

five fresh fish: "or a Centralia."

Whut? When I read that, I think "labor battle," but then, I live in Washington state, where the Centralia, Washington labor struggle went down after the First World War. Clarify? I'm not sure how the Wobblies relate, exactly. And even if I did, it might be best discussed elsewhere. Am I obtuse? Narrow horizons? Wouldn't be the first time.
posted by mwhybark at 9:50 PM on March 14, 2011

This is a disaster, but one that is still 1000s of times less bad than Chernobyl.

Can't we just quite trying to put a neat little bow around the moment? It's not that kind of present. It doesn't do us any good to speculate either way--excessively positively or negatively. Both kinds of speculation are equally pointless and counterproductive. Let's just deal with what we know.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:51 PM on March 14, 2011 [6 favorites]

There are now indications that the containment vessel around reactor 2 has been breached. If this is the case then a serious release of radioactivity seems likely. What is not yet clear is the scope of the breach, the Japanese are indicating that it's small but I wonder how accurately they know that.
posted by atrazine at 9:52 PM on March 14, 2011

Centralia, Pennsylvania, now a ghost town due to a mine fire that's been burning for several decades.
posted by infinitywaltz at 9:52 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh, OK, I'm with it now. Thanks.
posted by mwhybark at 9:54 PM on March 14, 2011

This is a disaster, but one that is still 1000s of times less bad than Chernobyl. This is more like a really bad Three Mile Island. Or a Centralia.

Not according to the NYT article delmoi linked to above (and the NYT has received recognition for its factual reporting of the nuclear accident).

According to the article, the danger is that radiation levels are so high that workers may have to abandon the site. Here are a couple of quotes:

“We are on the brink. We are now facing the worst-case scenario,” said Hiroaki Koide, a senior reactor engineering specialist at the Research Reactor Institute of Kyoto University. “We can assume that the containment vessel at Reactor No. 2 is already breached. If there is heavy melting inside the reactor, large amounts of radiation will most definitely be released.”

and

“It’s way past Three Mile Island already,” said Frank von Hippel, a physicist and professor at Princeton. “The biggest risk now is that the core really melts down and you have a steam explosion.”
posted by KokuRyu at 9:54 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

@mwhybark The reactor 4 fires were out as of one hour ago, my source is Jiji via Le Monde.
posted by Tobu at 9:54 PM on March 14, 2011

five fresh fish: Containment on #2 is breeched. I think, though, that this is *secondary* containment: the primary vessel is still okay.

Thanks for the summary but could you provide a citation/link/translation for this one please? I've been picking up the vibe but must have missed the actual notification. Or are you just inferring (which is perfectly fine, I just need to get my ducks in a row).

Upon review: atrazine: Based on your latest, same question. Like I said, just wanting to push back the fog of war.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:55 PM on March 14, 2011

Can't we just quite trying to put a neat little bow around the moment? It's not that kind of present. It doesn't do us any good to speculate either way--excessively positively or negatively. Both kinds of speculation are equally pointless and counterproductive. Let's just deal with what we know.

I agree.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:56 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

NHK is still not reporting the reactor 4 fire extinguished in their latest news update... So I'm concerned that might have been a translation error somewhere, the official making the statement on that fire was speaking in a confusing manner.

As for the No 2 reactor, what has been reported is that there was a blast heard near the suppression pool and the pressure within it fell. This leads to speculation that the suppression pool could have been ruptured. This happened as the operators were attempting to open the vent valve on the inside of the reactor (which from my understanding vents into the suppression pool). A plausible explanation would be that they managed to open the vent valve but the pressure in the reactor had already exceeded the operating margin of the suppression pool, hence causing a rupture within it.

A rupture of the suppression pool is potentially bad news as the water in it could evaporate, pushing radioactive gases out of the plant and also further reducing the cooling ability.
posted by Morbuto at 10:05 PM on March 14, 2011

According to the article, the danger is that radiation levels are so high that workers may have to abandon the site.

It's worth remembering that at Chernobyl a number of workers knowingly worked through lethal radiation doses in order to try to minimize the danger. In the middle of that disaster with so much terrible design and political dissembling, heroism of the highest order.
posted by Rumple at 10:06 PM on March 14, 2011 [7 favorites]

Japan’s nuclear safety agency suspects the explosion early Tuesday may have damaged the reactor’s suppression chamber, a water-filled tube at the bottom of the container that surrounds the nuclear core, said another agency spokesman, Shinji Kinjo. He said that chamber is part of the container wall, so damage to it could allow radiation to escape.

Radiation levels measured at the front gate of the Dai-ichi plant spiked following Tuesday’s explosion, Kinjo said.

Detectors showed 11,900 microsieverts of radiation three hours after the blast, up from just 73 microsieverts beforehand, Kinjo said.

It sounds like the suppression chamber is a tube directly connected to the inner containment vessel. Is a rupture in it equivalent to a rupture in the containment vessel?

An earlier report stated that they couldn't keep the water level covering the fuel in reactor #2 even before the explosion, which implies there was already some kind of leak at that point, no?
posted by msalt at 10:10 PM on March 14, 2011

Crosspost from the main thread, but I've put together a stream of the Hino, Tokyo geiger counter feed. The idea is not to overburden the server. This is a brute force way to do it! I'd like to write up a little script to mirror the actual image, but this is quick and easy.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:10 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

NHK is now also saying that it has been reported that the fire on reactor 4 was extinguished, which is reassuring.
posted by Morbuto at 10:10 PM on March 14, 2011

How many explosions have their been thus far? Four?
posted by infinitywaltz at 10:11 PM on March 14, 2011

Tobu: "@mwhybark The reactor 4 fires were out as of one hour ago, my source is Jiji via Le Monde"

Thanks Tobu. Jiji was early and accurate last night, so one hopes that will get corroborated soon. It's totally irritating that the wire-subscribers either don't pick up or don't get sourcing from them, though.

It was a half-hour from report to confirmation in this thread last night; how long has the 'fire's out' report been circulating?
posted by mwhybark at 10:13 PM on March 14, 2011

Three and the fire, I believe.

And msalt, they have been having trouble keeping the core submerged for quite some time because of the pressure of the steam that is boiling off.
posted by brightghost at 10:14 PM on March 14, 2011

Morbuto: "NHK is now also saying that it has been reported that the fire on reactor 4 was extinguished, which is reassuring."

Fascinating, I think we may have a news-cycle timing metric.
posted by mwhybark at 10:14 PM on March 14, 2011

@msalt: see the diagram on page 11 of this document: http://www.ansn-jp.org/jneslibrary/AccidentManagement.pdf

The suppression pool is directly connected to the reactor containment vessel, which surrounds the reactor vessel. Pressure (and radioactive gases) are vented from the interior reactor vessel into the suppression pool, by design.
posted by Morbuto at 10:15 PM on March 14, 2011

I heard "fire's out" on yokosonews more than 30 mins ago I think.
posted by nomisxid at 10:15 PM on March 14, 2011

I've been filtering twitter searches for the past five hours. I do twitter through the phone. Links aren't do-able.

The radiation levels are three orders of magnitude less severe than Chernobyl at this point. AFAIK, the releases have been worse than 3MI. Having a sense of scale is not "putting a neat little bow around it."
posted by five fresh fish at 10:16 PM on March 14, 2011

Here's an estimate for how much fresh water they need to pump in to each reactor: 50 gallons per minute. That sounds like fire-truck levels. How long can a pump designed for fresh water operate continuously with salt water running through it?
posted by zippy at 10:17 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

@zippy: they are using fire engine pumps now, from what I understand.
posted by Morbuto at 10:18 PM on March 14, 2011

I wonder if they could get enough liquid nitrogen to poor in. That would presumably solve the hydrogen explosion problem.
posted by delmoi at 10:20 PM on March 14, 2011

13:12 15 March
NEWS ADVISORY: Radiation 33 times normal level measured in Utsunomiya, Tochigi
13:14 15 March
NEWS ADVISORY: Radiation amount in Chiba Pref. twice to 4 times normal level
12:37 15 March
BREAKING NEWS: Small amounts of radioactive substances detected in Tokyo

From kyodo news
posted by karst at 10:20 PM on March 14, 2011

The suppression pool is directly connected to the reactor containment vessel, which surrounds the reactor vessel. Pressure (and radioactive gases) are vented from the interior reactor vessel into the suppression pool, by design.

Thanks! So basically, we do have a containment vessel breach then.
posted by msalt at 10:20 PM on March 14, 2011

infinitywaltz: "How many explosions have their been thus far? Four"

I'm still confused about this. I asked about it upthread, too.

Two for sure, #1 and #3 (the big one). Then there was a third one overnight, possibly associated with #2 torus but I'm still pretty unclear. Then the #4 issue was described as involving smoke and a noise, or something, (or I'm misremembering). The weird 'smoke and nose' thing was also used to describe the probable hydrogen explosions we know about most clearly and seems to be a way of describing remotely observed events accurately without asserting non-directly-observed-or-recorded explosive force.

However, TEPCO's English bulletins were not issued overnight and so I was not able to corroborate with that data source. I have not checked to see if they have updated yet this evening. Which suggests a course of action.
posted by mwhybark at 10:21 PM on March 14, 2011

TEPCO's last update on the reactors was before the very bad news conference.
posted by zippy at 10:23 PM on March 14, 2011

Current TEPCO bulletins.

The bulletins headline 3 'white smoke' events at plant 3 and one at plant 1.

I'll go with four explosions, Alex.
posted by mwhybark at 10:25 PM on March 14, 2011

From the NYT article:

The succession of problems at Daiichi was initially difficult to interpret — with confusion compounded by incomplete and inconsistent information provided by government officials and executives of the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power.

Is that statement even remotely fair? Following along with the press releases here and otherwise it seems like TEPCO has done quite well at releasing data (like real hard measurement data) and updates.

Or do other people have a different impression?
posted by slickvaguely at 10:25 PM on March 14, 2011

zippy: "TEPCO's last update on the reactors was before the very bad news conference"

Of course. Poor bastards.
posted by mwhybark at 10:26 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Mwhybark-explosions in reactors 1, 3, and 2, and a fire on 4. The smoke and noise are associated with the breach and explosion on reactor 2. We haven't heard much about reactor 4 and it's fire, other than it's now out. Hopefully.
posted by karst at 10:27 PM on March 14, 2011

karst: "13:12 15 March
NEWS ADVISORY: Radiation 33 times normal level measured in Utsunomiya, Tochigi
13:14 15 March
NEWS ADVISORY: Radiation amount in Chiba Pref. twice to 4 times normal level
12:37 15 March
BREAKING NEWS: Small amounts of radioactive substances detected in Tokyo

From kyodo news"

karst, please include links if possible.

Kyodo was also early and accurate recently but it's very helpful to be able to view the origin.
posted by mwhybark at 10:28 PM on March 14, 2011

Confirming the text of karst's post, but no further information is linked from the Kyodo News site, just a bare headine containing that exact text.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:30 PM on March 14, 2011

From Radiation leak feared at nuke plant, people urged to stay indoors at Kyodo

In Ibaraki Prefecture, just south of Fukushima, an amount of radiation up to about 100 times the usual level was measured Tuesday morning. In Kanagawa Prefecture, southwest of Tokyo, radiation of up to nine times the normal level was also briefly detected.

The Tokyo metropolitan government also said it has detected a small amount of radioactive materials such as iodine and cesium in the air of the metropolis.

The wind was blowing from north to south when the incidents occurred at the Fukushima plant.

posted by ob1quixote at 10:32 PM on March 14, 2011

We know from the graph/uStream that radiation was briefly about four times usual earlier today in at least one part of Tokyo, but has dropped back down since noon.
posted by brightghost at 10:32 PM on March 14, 2011

In addition to Kyodo, Reuters' live coverage has a lot of good info.
posted by karst at 10:35 PM on March 14, 2011

slickvaguely: "Or do other people have a different impression?"

I sure do. TEPCO was doing an OK job until yesterday, when the timing of releases slowed precipitously, and even prior to that the information in the releases was limited and constructed by way of referring to other documents, not easily located.

zippy is better qualified than I am to comment on this but as an example, the confusion over the number and location of explosions is directly attributable to TEPCO's communications strategy.

That said, I have some sympathy for the people trying to figure out what, exactly, they have a legal obligation to report in the face of what is clearly an escalating and overlapping series of severe crises.
posted by mwhybark at 10:36 PM on March 14, 2011

@mwhybark: also, quite plausibly, the people who have the best understanding of the situation (the remaining operators at the plant) might be a little busy to keep the PR people updated on the situation...
posted by Morbuto at 10:38 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

brightghost: According to a Google translation of the notes, that seems to be a home-brew Geiger counter connected to a PC, it will supposedly show bad readings if it reboots. I wouldn't worry too much about transitory readings.
posted by delmoi at 10:39 PM on March 14, 2011

Is that statement even remotely fair? Following along with the press releases here and otherwise it seems like TEPCO has done quite well at releasing data (like real hard measurement data) and updates.

I'd most certainly say so. The press releases have often come very late if they come at all. They've repeatedly emphasized that things are under control when they certainly haven't been and have minimized problems. This morning, apparently the PM watched the explosion on TV and was only officially informed an hour later. He then apparently told TEPCO to "pull themselves together." See this tweet. The TEPCO press conference this morning was a phenomenal clusterfuck that didn't help the situation one bit. If you didn't see it, it's well worth watching the video.
posted by zachlipton at 10:39 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

WNN update on No.2 and fire at No.4, including confirmation of fire being out.

... but it looks like the server is going out.
posted by mwhybark at 10:42 PM on March 14, 2011

I also have some sympathy for the actual TEPCO spokesmen. The bit I caught with them this morning on TV was so...ugh. Two or three reporters said, "Look, dammit, just give us facts, not your impressions or interpretations. Just the facts!" So then they ask "Is there a leak?" and the TEPCO guy says "The pressure dropped from 3 atmospheres to 1 atmosphere" and the guys say "That must be a leak, I can't think of anything else it could be. Stop obfuscating!"

I'm sitting there shouting in my head "The guy hasn't actually walked into the chamber and looked for a hole! Yeah, it's probably a hole, but the only fact they know at this point is the pressure dropped! The whole lot of you reporters just finished hounding the guy to state only the facts, and not his interpretations!"
posted by Bugbread at 10:43 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

It wasn't an explosion. There was a quake, then white smoke and a noise, then the roof collapsed.

NEITHER TRANSLATIONIST NOR SNARKIST
posted by zippy at 10:43 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

This is more than an hour old, but the IAEA reports as of 06:15 CET

Japanese authorities informed the IAEA that there has been an explosion at the Unit 2 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The explosion occurred at around 06:20 on 15 March local Japan time.

Japanese authorities also today informed the IAEA at 04:50 CET that the spent fuel storage pond at the Unit 4 reactor of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is on fire and radioactivity is being released directly into the atmosphere.

Dose rates of up to 400 millisievert per hour have been reported at the site. Japanese authorities are saying that there is a possibility that the fire was caused by a hydrogen explosion.

The IAEA is seeking further information on these developments.

posted by ob1quixote at 10:45 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU9oO4yiF-s

Not sure about the authenticity, but supposedly video of an explosion at reactor 4. Hopefully the explosion was related to the fire that is now out.
posted by karst at 10:48 PM on March 14, 2011

Asahi reporting that US military personnel assisted in firefighting efforts at Unit 4.

http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0315/TKY201103150203.html
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 10:48 PM on March 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

delmoi: that graph shows a steady climb in the two hours leading up to noon before dropping down, ; it doesn't look like a transitory reading from a server reset to me. That said I'm not worried about the data but rather relieved; the "four times normal" figure, as I understand it, is still far from a dangerous dose, and if that data is to be trusted it was only that high in Tokyo briefly. Hadn't seen any mention of that being a home-brew geiger counter, though...
posted by brightghost at 10:56 PM on March 14, 2011

Wow, if it weren't for that Youtube clip, I wouldn't have known.

TEPCO webcam pointed at Fukushima-1. Updated every hour according to the page.
posted by zippy at 11:15 PM on March 14, 2011

Latest update from AllThingsNuclear is pretty good.
posted by stbalbach at 11:18 PM on March 14, 2011

goddam, always new links to worry out of some cranny or other. good work, karst!
posted by mwhybark at 11:18 PM on March 14, 2011

Treasuries Jump in `Violent' Rally as Kan Warns of Further Radiation Leaks

To trade on this, look at BWX - it's an ETF with about 25% Japanese Government Bonds. It's the only way I've found to buy JGB's easily. When the stock market tanks, money flees to the security of government bonds, so the price will go up. In any national-scale disaster, buy bonds.
posted by stbalbach at 11:29 PM on March 14, 2011

Some details on Unit 2 failure from the Chicago Tribune. Excerpts:

The explosion followed an early-morning acknowledgment from Tokyo Electric Power that, because of human error, the fuel rods inside the Unit 2 reactor had been at least partly exposed to air for more than two hours during two separate incidents the previous evening...

...

Engineers had begun using fire hoses to pump seawater into the Unit 2 reactor ... after the emergency cooling system failed. Company officials said workers were not paying sufficient attention to the process, however, and let the pump stall, allowing the fuel rods to become partially exposed to the air.

Once the pump was restarted and water flow was restored, another worker inadvertently closed a valve that was designed to vent steam from the containment vessel. As pressure built up inside the vessel, the pumps could no longer force water into it and the fuel rods were once again exposed.
posted by zippy at 11:33 PM on March 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

It's easy to be wise after the event, but surely there ought to be a passive cooling system that can operate without any power at all - one that would operate if power failed? I'm thinking of something like a gravity-fed water reservoir. And my reading indicates that there are ways to shut reactors down quickly. Why wasn't this done?
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:34 PM on March 14, 2011

Joe: If you look further up, there are discussions about this- there are newer reactor designs with passive cooling built in. It wasn't done here because it's a 40-odd year old reactor and passive cooling is really hard and didn't really exist then.
posted by BungaDunga at 11:37 PM on March 14, 2011

Brightghost: It's not quite a home-brew geiger counter, but it is a home-brew setup (that is, the guy didn't make his own geiger counter, but the whole "geiger counter web update rig" is home-brew). He bought a Black Cat Systems computer-connectable geiger counter, hooked it up to his PC, and set it up to be web visible. He started this whole project out of curiosity about nuke testing in China.

The geiger counter isn't waterproof, so it's installed inside his house, pointing at the outside window. He lives in a wooden house or apartment, and has confirmed that it gives the same readings both inside and outside the house.
posted by Bugbread at 11:38 PM on March 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

I see. In that case I don't see any reason to doubt the readings he's getting; they seem in line with the figures attributed to kyodo news upthread.
posted by brightghost at 11:42 PM on March 14, 2011

Bugbread: "The geiger counter isn't waterproof, so it's installed inside his house, pointing at the outside window. He lives in a wooden house or apartment, and has confirmed that it gives the same readings both inside and outside the house."

Can I just take a moment to enjoy the nerdtasticness of this? That's awesome!
posted by mwhybark at 11:46 PM on March 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

eurhm, I mean except for the circs, etc. etc.
posted by mwhybark at 11:47 PM on March 14, 2011

Here's the product, delicious old-style website and all.
posted by mwhybark at 11:48 PM on March 14, 2011

To the question of how much radiation is being emitted and how it affects the human body (from the NY Times article):

Readings reported on Tuesday showed a spike of radioactivity around the plant that made the leakage categorically worse than in had been, with radiation levels measured at one point as high as 400 millisieverts an hour. Even 7 minutes of exposure at that level will reach the maximum annual dose that a worker at an American nuclear plant is allowed. And exposure for 75 minutes would likely lead to acute radiation sickness.
posted by zia at 12:07 AM on March 15, 2011

it gives the same readings both inside and outside the house

That makes me feel significantly less safe. I'd been under the impression that inside, windows closed, air conditioner off was a good place to be. Wooden houses, not so much?
posted by Ghidorah at 12:15 AM on March 15, 2011

Ghidorah, this tweet from Time Out Tokyo suggests that concrete buildings are safest.
posted by rachaelfaith at 12:19 AM on March 15, 2011

I'm not sure the specifics of it but my understanding is that, if there are significant radioactive particulates in the air, allowing them to come in contact with your skin is worse than simply getting the atmospheric radiation which is able to travel through materials. By all means, someone correct me if my fuzzy understanding is mistaken.
posted by brightghost at 12:19 AM on March 15, 2011

Meanwhile, on the west coast of North America, Nuclear fears prompt rush for [iodine] pills.

I live in Vancouver. My dad (in Ontario) made it clear that he wanted me to buy some of these pills just in case before they were all gone, and while I could argue with him that there is no risk, I will probably attempt buy them anyway just to make him feel at ease.
posted by PercussivePaul at 12:22 AM on March 15, 2011

Yikes. Shit just got real in Fukushima.

Japanese authorities also today informed the IAEA at 04:50 CET that the spent fuel storage pond at the Unit 4 reactor of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is on fire and radioactivity is being released directly into the atmosphere.

Dose rates of up to 400 millisievert per hour have been reported at the site.

IAEA Alert Log
posted by ctmf at 12:22 AM on March 15, 2011

I'd been under the impression that inside, windows closed, air conditioner off was a good place to be. Wooden houses, not so much?

Per Wikipedia, wood is helpful, but it's sadly not a fantastic shield, especially compared to concrete. I think breathing it in can be worse though, so there are still advantages to keeping the bad air out and allowing the radioactive material to pass over and/or fall to the ground. As I understand it, the radiation levels have decreased now and the winds are blowing west, so at the moment, I'd say no need to panic any more than previous reasons.
posted by zachlipton at 12:23 AM on March 15, 2011

Think of the places you get the worst cellphone reception, like in a basement or an underground parking garage. You'll probably also have the best shielding from any other kind of radiation there.
posted by Asparagirl at 12:23 AM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

Thanks, everyone. Asparagirl, sadly, I get excellent reception here.
posted by Ghidorah at 12:24 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

stbalbach: Granted, this probably isn't the appropriate thread for this, but there's a number of factors in play that make Japanese bonds problematic. It appears (based on pricing) that most of the capital leaving Japanese equities is going into U.S. treasury bonds instead of Japanese bonds.

No, this is not the appropriate thread for this. If you or stbalbach think it's a good idea to post an FPP about the effect of the disaster on your portfolio, please do so.
posted by one_bean at 12:26 AM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

ctmf, that's older news. The Unit 4 fire is allegedly out now.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 12:28 AM on March 15, 2011

NHK going to a new government press conference with Edano-san. Apparently talking about the budget (?) for disaster recovery. Part of this got cut off.

Reactor news. Water supply at reactors #1, #3 now stable. At #2 reactor, water being supplied but "have to continue to monitor it further" to know whether it is stable or not. At 12:30, radiation level at front gate down to 1362 microsieverts, then 496.4 microsieverts at 3:30pm. Not a threat to human health. "In that sense, we are a bit relieved." #4 fire is out when we look from outside, but we still have to look inside and check the details. That study is underway I have heard.
posted by zachlipton at 12:29 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

They want you in concrete buildings because they're more air-tight than wooden buildings.
posted by zengargoyle at 12:32 AM on March 15, 2011

We sent radiological teams from all the Naval Shipyards yesterday and today to help as well. Possibly more assistance to follow.

Also:
Seventh Fleet Repositions Ships after Contamination Detected

"the radiation exposure received from about one year of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun" being press release code for 300 mrem.

So, they received around 25 mr just by driving through the plume downwind, 100 miles away? That's eyebrow-raising.
posted by ctmf at 12:32 AM on March 15, 2011

Press conference continued: Level has come down, but we have to monitor it closely. High concentrations of radioactive material is not being emitted constantly from the #4 reactor. We have not yet received definitive information from the experts, but we feel that at this point in time we need not be on the "high alert" [re #4]. There could still be high levels of radiation among the debris, so workers need to be very cautious. No new radiation levels at points inside the plant. In the spent fuel pool, examination being carried out, water is being injected, don't know water level there, temperature is higher than it was before.

We don't know whether the fuel rods are exposed in the other reactors because of the amount of radiation from other sources, but the water injection is being done the pressure levels lead us to believe that much radiation isn't leaking.

Reporter asks about reactors #5 and #6 [ed: he's thinking ahead from past experience here]. Edano says #5 and #6 aren't running, but still have spent fuel. Apparently the temperature is rising in those fuel pools too (!). Preventative steps are underway.

TEPCO has been exerting efforts, but they should do their best and we are monitoring their responses.
posted by zachlipton at 12:35 AM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

one_bean, I understand, and I am in no way talking about my portfolio or ways to profit from the disaster. My specific comment is that the disaster may not affect the Japanese bond market in the way that stbalbach suggests.

sorry for the derail
posted by theclaw at 12:39 AM on March 15, 2011

Press conf. final: we think cooling efforts are working based on the pressure levels. Don't know the impact of the situation with the suppression pool. As far as "hazardous to human health," we're continuing to talk to experts about what those levels are. In reactors #5,6, the power to continue cooling efforts is not functioning well due to the tsunami, so the temperatures are rising and they are making efforts to control it.

[ed: If we have to go through this again with reactors #5 and 6, I'm punching something hard]
posted by zachlipton at 12:41 AM on March 15, 2011 [6 favorites]

A market crash is a kind of a disaster too. Discussing the financial effects of all this is, IMHO, a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry. But I would hope that the topic be moved to its own new post not for reasons of tact, but rather because this thread is already so damn long.
posted by Asparagirl at 12:47 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

[ed: If we have to go through this again with reactors #5 and 6, I'm punching something hard]

Like, say, Ishihara Shintaro's head?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 12:53 AM on March 15, 2011 [6 favorites]

Jet stream info in USA. Anybody heading from NYC to Florida for a week?
posted by nickyskye at 12:56 AM on March 15, 2011

nickyskye: that's awfully alarmist. There is no reason to believe that even the Western US would receive non-negligible effects in even some of the most phenomenally pessimistic scenarios. Even if some such horrible event did occur (and experts are saying the worst case scenario isn't really that horrible) and the models turned out to be completely wrong and the radiation traveled far farther than we ever thought possible, we'd have many days warning before any radiation reached the West Coast let alone the East. Go to Florida if you want a vacation, but there's not going to be anything to flee from in NYC, and even if all of the above unlikely things happened, you'd have well over a week's notice before anything made its way over.
posted by zachlipton at 1:07 AM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

Concrete is a better shield for gamma radiation than wood. 2.4" of concrete will halve the gamma radiation. It takes 11" of wood to accomplish this. The air equivalent is 500'.

Put another way, every 2.4" of concrete is the equivalent of being 500' further from the radiation.
posted by zippy at 1:11 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Ghidorah, according to this site (linked in the geiger graph link above), and assuming it is a similar geiger counter, approximately 100 CPM is 1 microsievert per hour. Baseline (i.e. natural background), also from the geiger graph site readings from December are about 10-30 CPM.

If it helps for putting these numbers in perspective: When I work with radioactive isotopes in lab, 30cpm is pretty much what I get as absolute minimum background when things are clean. Usually my background is higher than that, really. Anything under 100cpm (~.03mR/h for my setup) or so is generally sufficiently clean that it does not need to be decontaminated (according to the radiation safety office at my current institution and at previous institutions I've worked at.) So, readings like that would not worry me very much (as someone who has to keep track of radiation exposure at work for my own safety), particularly when that's a comparatively brief maximum (and not a constant) level of radioactivity.

I should be clear that the situation is obviously not the same, though, since I work with specific beta-emitters in a lab, not measuring current background of unknown isotopes from a nuclear power plant disaster! Note also that average background is going to vary depending on where you are and what Geiger counter you are using, and efficiency of measurement will depend on which isotopes you're looking at, etc. I'm not sure what sort of Geiger counter the wakwak.com people are using; I use the sort of Ludlum ratemeter/pancake detector that has been the standard at every lab I've worked at. They may or may not have a device with similar reliability or sensitivity, and their device may or may not have the ability to efficiently detect gamma, beta, and alpha emitters. (Not all are equally easily detected by a given system, but the mix of isotopes the reactors may be releasing most likely includes isotopes that produce all types of radiation.) Depending on the the setup the wakwak.com people have, my interpretation of their numbers might change.

All those caveats having been stated, while I would certainly be keeping a close eye on the situation if I were in Tokyo (!), I would not yet be very worried about health effects (or finding concrete bunkers) given the information currently available.
posted by ubersturm at 1:17 AM on March 15, 2011 [10 favorites]

One of the failure modes here that I wondered about earlier was the effect of multiple reactor incidents on the attention and time of experts on site. The more bad stuff going on, the more they have to switch from one task to the next, move around, and generally be distracted and exhausted. I wonder if this can be mitigated in plant design.

With regards to what weird stuff is in spent fuel, I posted a link earlier on what's in spent fuel rods in the Fukushima-2.

Here's a summary of what's found in one spent UO₂ fuel rod (from Fukushima-2 Unit 2, a 3.3MW reactor). From Table 2.2.2(3):

U-234 235 236 238
Pu-238 239 240 241 242
Nd-142 143 144 145 146 148
Am-241 243
CM-242 243 244
Np-237
posted by zippy at 1:40 AM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

Bingo!
posted by Justinian at 2:51 AM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

well, lots of freaked-out sounding description on the Take Away (NYC NPR news show) this morning.
posted by angrycat at 4:09 AM on March 15, 2011

A live geiger-counter in Tokyo. Yesterday's peak.
posted by mahershalal at 4:23 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Trying to keep the Tokyo Geiger counter page from getting too bogged down from outside visitors, there's a US mirror that's updated on the same schedule as the original.
posted by zengargoyle at 4:28 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Dr. Jeff Masters' re radiation plume and wind trajectories.
posted by nickyskye at 5:24 AM on March 15, 2011

12.23pm: Japan's nuclear crisis is [now] equivalent to number six on the INES scale of nuclear accidents, Kyodo news agency has quoted the French Nuclear Agency as saying.

12.07pm: The radiation levels at Fukushima Daiichi are now too high for staff from the Tokyo Electric Power Company, which operates the nuclear power plant, to stay in control rooms there, according to Kyodo news.

via guardian live blog. oh boy.
posted by yeoz at 5:29 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

TEPCO has released a new radiation measurements chart. Since the largest spike of 11930 microSv/hr at 9:00 a.m. at the main gate, the radiation has been decreasing steadily until the last update at 6 p.m., when it was just under legal limits.

Here is it in handy chart form.

The 400 milliSieverts/hr that was reported at the time of the fire isn't shown on this chart -- not entirely sure where they measured that.
posted by Jeanne at 5:30 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

guardian live blog is now saying "we're not so sure about that 'too strong to remain on site' report".
posted by Bugbread at 5:34 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I've been looking for confirmation of those high radiation levels, haven't been able to find it.

I suspect that lethal radiation levels or not, many of the control room staff will stay.
posted by atrazine at 5:36 AM on March 15, 2011

If it was at 400 milliSv this morning, that was probably too strong to remain on site (I hope, for their sake). It should have gone down significantly since they put the fire out.

NHK was just broadcasting the highest radiation levels they'd recorded around the country. Iwaki, south of the plants, was directly in the path of the wind, and was measured at 23 microSv/hr. Saitama was ~1.2 microSv/hr, Shinjuku around ~0.8. Radioactivity decreases with the square of distance, according to @hayano.
Again, those were the highest levels measured today; they've gone down since.
posted by Jeanne at 5:40 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

telegraph says: 12.20 Kyodo News reports that radiation levels at the Fukushima Daiichi plant have risen too high for staff from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) to remain in control rooms at the site.
Workers cannot stay in the room long and so are going in and out alongside monitoring from a different room, according to Reuters.
posted by yeoz at 5:42 AM on March 15, 2011

The radioactivity at the main gate measuring station has been decreasing, the extremely high 400 mSv reading was between buildings 3 and 4, almost certainly due to the smoke plume from the fire. I don't know where the control room is relative to the rest of the plant.
posted by atrazine at 5:42 AM on March 15, 2011

The more bad stuff going on, the more they have to switch from one task to the next, move around, and generally be distracted and exhausted. I wonder if this can be mitigated in plant design.

This has been a major focus of industrial control interface design since Three Mile Island. Like I said above, these plants date from the 1970s, and while they've had their monitoring systems upgraded somewhat, they're still in the '80s at best. Each piece of instrumentation in these control rooms is displayed on a single dial or gauge (Single Sensor Single Indicator). There's no grouping or integration of instrument readings to aid interpretation into decision-relevant information. The only support for monitoring is single-variable high/low threshold alarms. But what is 'low' in normal operation may not be in a different context, and the horn for one alarm sounds just like another...

This adds up to a lot of workload (physical and mental) to move around searching and observing variables, a lot of distraction from alarms interrupting work-in-progress, and some troublesome human tendencies coming to light, e.g. the 'cry wolf effect' of false alarms. Operators deal with this by having a very sophisticated understanding of the plant, but they're still vulnerable to confirmation bias - getting 'locked into' one of many interpretations of what is really going on 'behind the numbers'.

For example, is the water in the core a liquid, steam, or a mix of both? This was the critical question at Three Mile Island that operators misunderstood for hours. It requires combining pressure, temperature, and physical assumptions. Now which pressure gauge should you trust? And what about if you have a mixture of seawater, of unknown salinity?

If only re-instrumenting nuclear power plants were as easy as replacing old with new aircraft.
posted by anthill at 5:47 AM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

(Note that a millisievert = mSv = 1000 microsievert = 1000 μSv)

The reading of 400 mSv appears to have been directly in the smoke plume from the spent fuel fire, that is 400,000 μSv. No information on what the measurements are there now.

I've seen several news outlets confuse the two (an easy mistake for those without a scientific background)
posted by atrazine at 5:49 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

TEPCO has been continuing operations to pour seawater into the troubled No. 1, 2 and 3 reactors to prevent overheating and further damage to their containers. But despite the water injection, fuel rods in the three reactors remain partially exposed.

Also says 4, 5, and 6 spent fuel pools are getting hotter and may be boiling.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78267.html
posted by karst at 5:50 AM on March 15, 2011

Give up on US news at least. ABC just told us that #4 was on fire and the 10,000 people were still missing and deadly radiation are forcing evacuations.
posted by zengargoyle at 5:53 AM on March 15, 2011

q for the experts: do the spent fuel rod pools have safety redundancies on the same level as the active fuel rods?
posted by angrycat at 5:54 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

The last of all the times mentioned in that kyodo report was 10:22, which was almost 12 hours ago. I know the report was written sometime after 10:22, but I don't see any indications that what its saying is current.
posted by Bugbread at 5:55 AM on March 15, 2011

For the morning people, it's 10pm in Japan now, if you see crazy news reports and it's not dark, it's not current. You won't get any breaking news for the next 8 hours or so unless something really blows up.
posted by zengargoyle at 6:00 AM on March 15, 2011

TEPCO press conference says that they can't measure the temperature of the spent fuel pools in #1-#4. #5 is at 57.3 Celsius, #6 at 66 Celsius, and getting hotter.
posted by Jeanne at 6:10 AM on March 15, 2011

(Note that a millisievert = mSv = 1000 microsievert = 1000 μSv)

Thank you for that atrazine. Very helpful.
posted by marsha56 at 6:11 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

66 celcius is 150 F..
posted by empath at 6:11 AM on March 15, 2011

NYT on the pools:

In a reactor pool, the time it takes uncooled fuel to begin boiling the surrounding water depends on how much fuel is present and how old it is. Fresh fuel is hotter in terms of radiation than old fuel is.

Mr. Lochbaum, who formerly taught reactor operation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the pools measured about 40 feet long, 40 feet wide and 45 feet deep. The spent fuel, he added, rested at the pool’s bottom and rose no higher than 15 feet from the bottom.

That means that in normal operations, the spent fuel is covered by about 30 feet of cooling water.

posted by warbaby at 6:15 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

So surreal to wake up and hear news coverage basically reiterating the situation as it was when I went to bed. Not even tempted to confuse it with current anymore.
posted by mwhybark at 6:16 AM on March 15, 2011

Are the spent fuel pools at #1-3 and #5 and #6 in the same place as #4? That is to say, up at the top outside of the pressure vessel (the inverted light bulb)? If so, what was the plan for keeping the radioactivity in? (The exterior building's purpose is simply to keep the weather out, right?) Sorry if I'm missing something.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 6:17 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

The thirty feet of water is more than adequate shielding for the radiation. You can stand at the top and look down into the pool and see the Cerenkov radiation.
posted by warbaby at 6:27 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

At #1 and #3, the spent fuel pools are in the same location. I do not know about #2 or #5 and #6.

There is confusion as to terminology regarding containment. The inverted lightbulb is *not* the pressure vessel, it is the concrete-plus sheathing around the pressure vessel.

The fuel pools appear to be open within the space at the top of the buildings so that the crane can service them. The crane can be nest seen in this diagram at the top.

Side note:

This Architecture Week article provides thumbs to several illustrations that all appear to be U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sourced, but which I have not seen referenced in this thread previously. I have not read the linked article yet and cannot provide an assessment of it per se.
posted by mwhybark at 6:33 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Sorry, here's the relevant page in the piece.

every time I hit 'post' instead of 'link' I think about human error and user interfaces
posted by mwhybark at 6:34 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

o/t: Marketplace Tech Report has coverage of current US status early-warning system for earthquakes and such. tl;dl: not up yet but coming.

This came up in one of these threads earlier, I have forgotten which.
posted by mwhybark at 6:41 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

mwhybark: "At #1 and #3, the spent fuel pools are in the same location. I do not know about #2 or #5 and #6.

There is confusion as to terminology regarding containment. The inverted lightbulb is *not* the pressure vessel, it is the concrete-plus sheathing around the pressure vessel."

Ah, OK, thanks much. That diagram helps me immensely.

So is it fair to say that they thought they'd never spring a leak in the cooling pools? (At least a leak big enough that they wouldn't be able to keep the spent fuel rods covered, that is.)
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 6:42 AM on March 15, 2011

Reuters: Japan radioactivity could enter food chain, kids at risk.
posted by ericb at 6:42 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

(Facepalm)

All this time worrying about the containment buildings, and it looks like they've let a spent fuel pool boil away.

Did you ever get the feeling that you can't win? That's what these guys must be feeling like.

That 400mSv/hr reading is *ugly* -- but, thankfully, it's at one spot, which means we're not looking at something very motile. But it's obvious there's been a compromise of some sort, and it looks like, from what I can read, it's the spent fuel pool, which I'd spaced on.

Even better, it appears to be Unit 4, which is shut down -- but still has spent fuel.

Also -- be careful reading numbers. 400mSv/hr is huge, but it's not instant-death. 10 hours in that would be very bad, 2 hours would certainly leave you sick, but 5 minutes of this is a dose you can easily cope with -- and note, that's bare skin, you can bet they won't be.

The biggest threat, there, is someone goes is, the material sticks to their clothing and keeps dosing them. This is why the basic decontamination ritual is "take off everything, shower, scrub, put on new clothes."

But in terms of using earlier units, this is 400,000μSv/hr dose. This is a do not kid around exposure. This is, frankly, a bad bit of news.

I have to agree with the French. This is an INES 6 -- this is now worse that TMI was. Four reactors involved? The problem is that comparing this, at is stands, to the Kyshtym disaster isn't really a fair comparison, Kyshtym was ugly squared -- but the INES scale is an order-of-magnitude scale, and while Kyshtym is a high-6, this is a low one.

The definition of INES 6 "Significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures." Let's see -- mSv readings at several spots, multiple decontaminations requirements...Yeah, we're there.

God, if you'd written this scenario in a book, I'd have rejected it as implausible. Though the bit about losing cooling on reactor #2 because the firetruck pumping the water ran out of fuel? That's *very* realistic.

IAEA is stating that at 0000Z 15-Mar, there was a reading of 11.9mSv (that's 11,900μSv -- I told you that 10μSv was a tiny dose, I'm going to stay in μSv so you can see the differences) and at 0600Z 15-Mar, 6000μSv (.6mSv).

Those are not good numbers, but they're not the 400,000μSv they found between reactors 3 & 4, and which made them jump away. It's possible -- I'd even say probable -- that this is a very local release, but it's still 400mSv, you need to not fool around with that.

Another ideal as to a dose -- 100,000μSv/year is the lowest cumulative dose that we've seen a statistically significant** increase in cancer rates. So, if by some miracle, you had no dosing whatsoever this year, and you spent 15 minutes in that 400,000μSv area there, your chance of cancer would have gone up.

We'll be able to tell where that came from, in time -- the isotope profile will easily be matchable to the various reactors.

It appears containment at Reactors 1,3,4,5 and 6 is definitely holding. Reactor 2 may have a more serious coolant leak which, while contaminating the heck out of the building, isn't going to go very far.

The spent fuel pools, though, are an issue. They're not nearly as protected, because they're basically idle.

I don't know. Kyodo news is predicting DOOM, and while they've generally been inaccurate in details, they're right in that this situation is much worse than it was 24 hours ago. I'm deeply concerned about the story about the firetruck running out of fuel, because that's implying that site access is still very hard. If they could get power and pumps onsite, this would be a much better situation.

I also think that this is pretty much going to kill nuclear power in the world. Which, well, to be frank will kill far more than using it would -- because the rapidly climbing Chinese and Indian economies *will* demand electrical power, and if they can't get it from nuclear, they'll happily burn coal. But nobody will remember the tsunami in two years, but they'll never forget this.

And I still stand by this statement -- even if all four reactors involve undergo complete melting of the core, the tsunami will have killed, hurt, and caused financial harm to vastly more people than these reactors will.

So it goes.

Status, from what I can gather.

Let's do the better one first.

Fukushima 2 (Fukushim Daini)

Reactor 1 -- Cooling failure, recovered, cold shutdown. Stable
Reactor 2 -- Cooling failure, recovered, cold shutdown. Stable
Reactor 3 -- Cold shutdown. Stable.
Reactor 4 -- Cooling failure, recovered, cold shutdown. Stable

It is very unlikely that there is any damage to these reactors. Other that brief power outages, the cooling systems worked well. Reactor 2 had a pump failure, forcing them to use other cooling systems to get things fully stable.

And the not so better one

Fukushima 1 (Fukushima Daiichi)

Access to reactors 1-4 is hampered by site conditions.

Reactor 1 -- Cooling failure, probable core damage, vapor venting, seawater in, hydrogen explosion. Generally stable.

Reactor 2 -- Cooling failure, probably core damage, almost certain fuel rod exposure from coolant, probably damage to parts of the containment system in the torus. If any reactor is going to melt down, this will be the one. Control unknown -- coolant levels seem to be difficult to maintain.

Reactor 3-- Cooling failure, probable core damage, vapor venting, seawater in, hydrogen explosion. Appears generally stable.

Reactor 4 -- Shutdown. Fire from #3 explosion, possible damage to spent fuel pool. Possible leak in spent fuel pool. Reactor in cold shutdown.

Reactor 5 -- Cold shutdown

Reactor 6 -- Cold shutdown.

Looking at site images, Reactors 5 and 6 are well apart from Reactors 1-4, so 5 & 6 should be safe.

I need to go do some work.

** Please remember the difference between significant, which is a loose word, and statistical significance, which means a change that is unlikely to have occurred by chance. If I have two machines, one makes 1000 balls that weigh 19 ounces, and the other makes 1000 balls that weigh 18.95 ounces, there is a statically significant difference between these insignificant weights.
posted by eriko at 6:48 AM on March 15, 2011 [63 favorites]

InsertNiftyNameHere: "So is it fair to say that they thought they'd never spring a leak in the cooling pools?"

I believe so.

This came up in this thread and was very briefly discussed, but Japan apparently recycles the fuel, so it may not have been generally stored in the pools for long periods of time. No information from TEPCO that I am aware of has addressed what fuel, if any, was stored in the pools at the time of the quake beyond the mention of the spent fuel in conjunction with the fire at #4.

The lack of an ongoing rise in radiation releases after the roof collapses at #1 and #2 implies that either the pools remain water filled or that there was no spent fuel in them. I think.
posted by mwhybark at 6:50 AM on March 15, 2011

Good morning and yet again ~ thank you sooo much all for being here to wake up to. Beyond comforting not having to rely on the media these past few days to know what's truly going on.

A point so well and rightly made by merely clicking on the link ericb just posted ..... ARGH! Exactly the kind of fear-mongering baloney (tempering my adjectives deliberately here :) that runs rampant over here and has everybody running for iodine tablets and radioactivity survival kits. I didn't even watch the video - just the headline nauseated me. Enough media people - the reality and the obvious is horrible enough as it is in Japan. You do not need to hype it for the sake of your bottomlines and viewer numbers. All mefites in Japan that I'm learning to know and love thanks to this thread ~ you have my sincerest apologies for our media stupidity and insensitivity.

Wish I could care-package the entire country a box full of peace, serenity and calm.
posted by cdalight at 6:53 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

TBS in Japan is reporting that there's a possibility of 70% core damage at reactor 1, 30% core damage at reactor 2. No information on reactor 3.
posted by Jeanne at 7:06 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

The paranoia about radiation in the US seems completely insane to me. We blew up actual atomic bombs much closer than these plants are without any significant fallout hitting the US.
posted by empath at 7:07 AM on March 15, 2011 [12 favorites]

My friend in Tokyo can only understand/access about 60 percent of what's on the news now due to the technical language, being a non-native speaker; he's debating fleeing Tokyo temporarily for Thailand based on the links I've been sending him from here and the other thread. His girlfriend still doesn't want to go... he's thinking a few days' vacation for now til this blows over (assuming he can get out), but he's freaked out about getting his re-entry stamped and the traveling approvals for a non-Japanese resident.

Thanks Metafilter, you are helping friends in-country that aren't members of this site (and myself) keep fears within reason and make better decisions than all the OMG MARK! RADIATION SICKNESS! IODINE PILLS! crap others are commenting on his FB wall.

Thank you, everyone, truly, for compiling all this info. It's invaluable to our community and beyond...
posted by Unicorn on the cob at 7:22 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think the paranoia is just built up existential angst about the "atomic age". I grew up in the post TMI period and then there was the Chernobyl accident. During the intervening years I think many people had forgotten or buried their fears about nuclear energy. This has just brought a lot of that latent fear to the surface.

That and apparently most Americans don't really realize how damned big the Pacific ocean is. I mean they conceptually know it's big but they don't really grasp the distances involved.
posted by vuron at 7:24 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Meanwhile, Google reports on an outcome of the Fukushima crisis that probably could be an anime....
(Just a headline mistake in Google news, but I needed the levity.)
posted by Jeanne at 7:24 AM on March 15, 2011

We blew up actual atomic bombs much closer than these plants are without any significant fallout hitting the US.

Hey, I'm surviving late stage thyroid cancer exactly because of those nuclear bombs tests that went off in the USA.

"The highest rates for thyroid cancer in the world occur in Northern America"

"It is estimated that 44,670 men and women (10,740 men and 33,930 women) will be diagnosed with and 1,690 men and women will die of cancer of the thyroid in 2010"
posted by nickyskye at 7:33 AM on March 15, 2011 [10 favorites]

I sent a text message to a friend in southern California at 0530 EST Sat. 12-Mar-2011: "If you were planning on buying plastic sheeting, tarps, duct tape, or bottled water anytime in the next week you should go before people get up Saturday. Reason being I expect massive overreaction to the nuc plant news from Japan."

If only I had thought to include KI Tablets, I could have made him rich. The Wall Street Journal reports this morning Potassium Iodide Runs Low as Americans Seek It Out.

One leading supplier, Anbex Inc., quickly sold out of its supply of more than 10,000 14-tablet packages on Saturday, said Alan Morris, president of the Williamsburg, Va., company.

He said the closely held firm was getting about three orders a minute for $10 packages of its Iosat pills, up from as few as three a week normally.

"Those who don't get it are crying. They're terrified," said Mr. Morris. The company tells callers that the likelihood of dangerous levels of radiation reaching the U.S. is low, but some callers, particularly on the West Coast, remain afraid, Mr. Morris said.

Interest is also high at Fleming Pharmaceuticals, a St. Louis County company that makes potassium iodide in liquid form. "It actually has been insanity here," said Deborah Fleming Wurdack, a co-owner.

The company hasn't accounted for all the recent orders, but Ms. Wurdack estimates the firm is getting dozens of calls an hour, along with emails, requesting the 45-milliliter ThyroShield bottles, which sell for $13.25 each.

posted by ob1quixote at 7:34 AM on March 15, 2011

We've already had someone asking about KI profiteering in ask yesterday.
posted by nomisxid at 7:38 AM on March 15, 2011

Al Jazeera:

11:22pm

The ongoing crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant has been upgraded to a level 6 on the International Nuclear Events Scale. To put this into perspective, the Chernobyl diaster was a level 7, and the Three mile Island accident was a level 5.
posted by futz at 7:40 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Along the same vein, they've apparently gone cuckoo around the South China Sea:

“It is crazy, people have been reading about the situation in Japan and they are demanding iodine tablets, but most pharmacies don’t stock the tablets,” said Kuala Lumpur pharmacist Paul Ho.

“There have also been text messages and emails going round that you can use the iodine antiseptic solution, which you place around your neck, to help cut down on radiation absorption,” he added.

Such a treatment would be utterly ineffective, but Mr. Ho said “we have run out of all our iodine antiseptic solution at the moment”.

One SMS text message, also circulating in China, Hong Kong and the Philippines, is billed as a BBC “newsflash” and urges Asians to “take precautions” including sheltering indoors and swabbing the thyroid region of the neck with iodine.

“The BBC has issued no such flash but it has caused particular panic in the Philippines,” a BBC News website story said.

posted by ob1quixote at 7:45 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I friend in Japan tried to get potassium iodide only to find out that the government holds control of the entire supply. For those in Japan who are nervous about the situation, it might give you peace of mind to chow down on nori, wakame and kombu, which are high in iodine.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 7:46 AM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

One SMS text message, also circulating in China, Hong Kong and the Philippines, is billed as a BBC “newsflash” and urges Asians to “take precautions” including sheltering indoors and swabbing the thyroid region of the neck with iodine.

In case people don't know this, the reason that you take iodine tablets is to pre-load your thyroid with non-radioactive iodine so that any radioactive iodine gets excreted instead of stored in your thyroid.
posted by empath at 7:48 AM on March 15, 2011 [10 favorites]

nobody will remember the tsunami in two years, but they'll never forget this.

Now has got to be a come-to-Jesus moment for the nuclear industry, if it's not too late. The media coverage of the past week could very well make nuclear taboo in developed countries. Silence from the nuclear industry (like @arclight being muzzled) just creates a news vacuum for nuclear policy lobbying groups to fill.

If you want a low-carbon future, better get busy doing PR (shudder) or get busy sucking the coal stack.
posted by anthill at 7:50 AM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

Seafood in general is high in iodine which is why cretinism has historically been most prevalent in inland mountain regions. The role that seafood plays in the Japanese diet is thus a double edged sword, most people will have high background levels of stable iodine and will thus take up less radiaoactive iodine if exposed to it, on the other hand radioactive iodine that ends up in the ocean will concentrate in seafood and may make fish from some areas dangerous for the several months that it will take for the iodine to decay.
posted by atrazine at 7:50 AM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Actually, the best thing the nuclear industry could do is to start giving out geiger counters to everyone they can. The invisibility of radiation is one of the biggest factors feeding this anxious fear...

As soon as people can have some sense of control over radiation (and as it sinks in that that they're exposed to it every second of every day) perhaps some sense of perspective will sink in?
posted by anthill at 7:52 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh the profiteering is definitely going on, just yesterday I saw someone on Ebay selling the KI tablets for $1000 a bottle.

I think the saddest thing is that sometime in the next few days some frightened parent, thousands of miles away from the disaster, is going to dose their kids up on these things, making their kids sick or worse.
posted by smoothvirus at 7:54 AM on March 15, 2011

Japan imposes a 30km no-fly zone near nuke plant as situation worsens.
posted by ericb at 7:58 AM on March 15, 2011

BBC:

#
1456: Tepco says it may start pouring water from a helicopter over Fukushima Daiichi's reactor four in the next few days, to cool the spent-fuel pool.
posted by futz at 7:59 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

NHK World's English language feed is now down for my region (Maryland USA). Anyone else having this problem?
posted by nj_subgenius at 7:59 AM on March 15, 2011

errr. cancel that, lower bitrate seems to work ok.
posted by nj_subgenius at 8:02 AM on March 15, 2011

1456: Tepco says it may start pouring water from a helicopter over Fukushima Daiichi's reactor four in the next few days, to cool the spent-fuel pool.

Wow, it's to that eh?
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:03 AM on March 15, 2011

From @hayano: cooling system has failed at reactor 4. Temperatures in the pressure vessel are still below 100 degrees Celsius but may rise, in which case they're going to implement Reactor Core Isolation Cooling.
posted by Jeanne at 8:04 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

The helicopter cooling method sounds pretty dodgy to me. Either this means that they can't get enough pumps into the site to keep cooling all the damaged systems or they don't feel that operators can get close enough to reactor 4's spent fuel pool to keep it full.

Considering the amount of radiation found between reactors 3 and 4 in the last 12 hrs I wonder if they just don't feel comfortable sending in crews to check/repair stuff on the ground.
posted by vuron at 8:05 AM on March 15, 2011

In all the stores in my town, iodine supplements, fresh miso and seaweed snacks are sold out. Like, gone. As of last night, anyway.
posted by everichon at 8:06 AM on March 15, 2011

The helicopter cooling method sounds pretty dodgy to me.

I've been saying this for a while. Honestly, what if they would have had a helicopter up there when one of those explosions rocked the joint? It might have been fine...
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:07 AM on March 15, 2011

they don't feel that operators can get close enough to reactor 4's spent fuel pool to keep it full.

This seems to be the case, at least the New York Times is reporting so.
posted by IvoShandor at 8:07 AM on March 15, 2011

That AFP article reported, One packet of 14 pills had attracted bids of up to $540 at online auction house eBay and talk about radiation poisoning was so feverish on Twitter and other forums that the World Health Organisation issued a statement urging calm. That's US$3.37/mg.
posted by ob1quixote at 8:08 AM on March 15, 2011

I wonder what my bottle of Iodophor is worth.
posted by No Robots at 8:10 AM on March 15, 2011

For those in Japan who are nervous about the situation, it might give you peace of mind to chow down on nori, wakame and kombu, which are high in iodine.

Natural dietary doses are about two orders of magnitude below the radioiodine-blocking doses administered during a nuclear crisis. You'd have to eat hundreds of kilos seaweed or whatever to get close.

I think the saddest thing is that sometime in the next few days some frightened parent, thousands of miles away from the disaster, is going to dose their kids up on these things, making their kids sick or worse.

Dangerous doses of iodine are a few orders of magnitude above the blocking dose in those tablets. If she follows the directions, the worst that will happen is the kids will have a funny metallic taste in their mouths for awhile.

Unless they have iodine sensitivty and then oops!
posted by clarknova at 8:11 AM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

clarknova, that's a lot of seaweed.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 8:12 AM on March 15, 2011

I think the saddest thing is that sometime in the next few days some frightened parent, thousands of miles away from the disaster, is going to dose their kids up on these things, making their kids sick or worse.

I don't doubt this. I live on the East Coast, some 9000 miles from Japan, and there was parking-lot discussion among (well educated, middle class, professional-type) parents at drop-off about what, if anything, they should be doing.

Part of this is just being a parent - you worry about your kids, that's what we're hard-wired to do. But part of it, frankly, is a combination of the dumbed-down coverage on CNN et al and a real lack of science education in this country. (Possibly being a child of the cold war doesn't really help matters.)

I'm really thankful for all the info presented here, because it helps me help other people not to panic.

That being said, were I in Tokyo, I'd be panicking.
posted by anastasiav at 8:13 AM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

Japan crisis worse than Three Mile Island, experts say.
posted by ericb at 8:13 AM on March 15, 2011

FWIW - this article from The New Yorker - if you stick with it - has implications for much being discussed & dealt with here: The Truth Wears Off - Is There Something Wrong With the Scientific Method?

"Many results that are rigorously proved and accepted start shrinking in later studies."

(If nothing else? Interesting read that can be used as a distraction if needed :-)
posted by cdalight at 8:14 AM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

IvoShandor, that article seems to suggest that while the pool is definitely getting hot the sheer volume of the spent fuel housing pool would require a significant amount of time to evaporate.

I assume that means that there is no circulation at all and that evaporation is occurring but that they want to be able to maintain a lower temperature/higher water level even if it involves the rather sketchy act of dumping large volumes of water (likely seawater) directly into the pool.

The simple fact that they are even talking about this sort of contingency makes me think that they have a more substantial problem with the pool than evaporation that is reducing water volume at an alarming rate.
posted by vuron at 8:14 AM on March 15, 2011

The media coverage of the past week could very well make nuclear taboo in developed countries. ... better get busy doing PR (shudder) or get busy sucking the coal stack.--anthill

If nuclear energy ceases to be an option, that doesn't have to mean we all have to burn coal. California gets less than 0.5% of its energy from coal, and it's working toward 0. Much its energy supply comes from natural gas, but even that has half the carbon output and much lower pollution than coal.
posted by eye of newt at 8:14 AM on March 15, 2011

Unless the natural gas is extracted by fracking!
posted by mareli at 8:18 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

The panic is kind of surreal to me, considering I actually have a box full of i131 contaminated kitty litter sitting on my deck, as per the vet's instructions, perfectly safe and harming no one. If the vet didn't send me home with iodine pills then, I'm not worried now.
posted by nomisxid at 8:18 AM on March 15, 2011

Natural Gas might be the most likely alternative in the US as the regulatory environment surrounding new nuclear power plants is going to get very fighty but it's hardly a "great" alternative.

Furthermore we have to worry about more than the US, India and China are ramping up their economies rapidly and their energy demands are skyrocketing. Hydro plants in China will help but it's quite likely that they will continue to burn Coal at massive rates.

II think it's quite likely that Western democracies will turn away from Nuclear as a result of this disaster but it's hard to tell what China and India will do.
posted by vuron at 8:22 AM on March 15, 2011

I realize this is a very simplistic question, especially after the very detailed and fascinating accounts in this thread, but I was reading a CNN article (low expectations!) this morning and was confused by these two quotes:

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said amounts returned to a level that would not cause "harm to human health."

and

For the first time since the quake crippled cooling systems at the Daiichi reactors on Friday and blasts occurred at two reactors Saturday and Monday, Edano said radiation levels at the plant had increased to "levels that can impact human health."

Is he talking about two different things or am I just not reading carefully? I will blame my lack of comprehension of lack of coffee if necessary.
posted by theredpen at 8:25 AM on March 15, 2011

This should not be a referendum on nuclear power. Any source of concentrated energy on the scale we've become used to is going to come with serious problems. Rather, it should be a referendum on the obscene level of consumption we take as a given.

If this mess and Deepwater Horizon together can't make us shake that assumption, we're in a bad way. There needs to be a major culture shift in the developed world. It's possible—such a shift was under way in 1970s till the next boom derailed it.
posted by maniabug at 8:26 AM on March 15, 2011 [13 favorites]

Fukushima weather report.
posted by nickyskye at 8:27 AM on March 15, 2011

Is he talking about two different things or am I just not reading carefully? I will blame my lack of comprehension of lack of coffee if necessary.

I think it means that things are fine if you're outside of the evacuation zone, and decidedly Not Fine if you're working in the control room of the plant.
posted by schmod at 8:28 AM on March 15, 2011

@vuron, it is hard to tell about many others: Turkey, Albania, Croatia etc
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/3663/albania-nuclear-reactor-reports-premature
posted by carmina at 8:28 AM on March 15, 2011

Natural Gas might be the most likely alternative in the US as the regulatory environment surrounding new nuclear power plants is going to get very fighty but it's hardly a "great" alternative.

We have hundreds of thousands of square miles of wide open prairie and the wind blows steadily across nearly all of it.
posted by clarknova at 8:29 AM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

theredpen, I think he's talking at two different times, and CNN is just sort of clueless about placing statements and events in any sort of meaningful sequence.
posted by staggernation at 8:32 AM on March 15, 2011

A scientist on the NHK podcasted news broadcast warned that you should *absolutely* avoid taking any iodine until fallout is a clear and present danger, as doing so is harmful. He mentioned, however, that the seaweed-laden diet of people in Japan gives them a natural level of iodine helpful in a fallout situation. I'm skeptical of this last claim . . .
posted by Gordion Knott at 8:33 AM on March 15, 2011

I looked up the iodine blocking dose for adults (130 mg tablet) and calculated you need to eat 34 kg of oceanic fish to achieve that dosage. Crap.
posted by Dodecadermaldenticles at 8:34 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm really thankful for all the info presented here, because it helps me help other people not to panic.

Agreed and preventing panic is important right now. If you take a quick tour of conspiracy/survivalist type web forums, people are going absolutely nuts, making far out claims that the entire northern hemisphere is now going to be poisoned. (eyeroll)

So far I've read reports of:
- a woman in Michigan pulling her kids out of school and planning on hiding in her basement for two weeks.

- some guy in Spain (SPAIN??? He's what, 10,000 miles downwind?) taping his windows up.

- some guy in Washington state packing up his R/V and leaving.

If the fear has reached the point that parents are talking about it in parking lots on the East Coast then it may be time for local/federal officials to announce that any fears are unfounded.

hyperbole can kill.
posted by smoothvirus at 8:34 AM on March 15, 2011 [9 favorites]

theredpen, given my understanding of the situation, I believe Edano meant that radiation had spiked to harmful levels but have since lowered. Then again, given the report that they're planning on using a helicopter to try and put water on the spent fuel pool at unit 4, perhaps not.
posted by ob1quixote at 8:35 AM on March 15, 2011

IvoShandor, that article seems to suggest that while the pool is definitely getting hot the sheer volume of the spent fuel housing pool would require a significant amount of time to evaporate.

I was really just commenting on how it was unsafe for workers to approach the soaring temperatures. I do know that I am glad I am not working there right now. Those guys and gals and can have every military medal I ever received. Worked in NBC ops while in the Army.
posted by IvoShandor at 8:37 AM on March 15, 2011

If you take a quick tour of conspiracy/survivalist type web forums, people are going absolutely nuts

Almost by definition.
posted by staggernation at 8:37 AM on March 15, 2011 [6 favorites]

They're going to need a lot of helos, fuel and water if that's the plan. Medium-capacity firefighting copters will hol at most 700 gallons of water. built-in residential swimmimg pools hold, say, 1,000 gallons. The Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane, also built by Ericsson under license, would likely be the best craft to use as it has a capacity of 20,000 lbs payload. Assuming (optimitically) that more than one S-64 is in the region, and assuming (recklessly) this payload could be all water, then you could at best get 2300 gallons on one spot. I don't know the capacity for S-64s in firefighting configuration.
Without checking further for approximate fuel pool dimensions at this plant, IIRC, a spent fuel water pool;s surface must be at least 20 feet above the control rods stored. OK, so take a flyer here: a 20 foot by 40 foot that is at least 20 feet deep is...way over 100,000 gallons.
Maybe I'm all bent out of shape, but this sounds like desperation unless the boil-off rate of the pool is *really* slow, or I made some other stupid mistake.
The idea of using copters for this doesn't feel at all right.
posted by nj_subgenius at 8:38 AM on March 15, 2011

I looked up the iodine blocking dose for adults (130 mg tablet) and calculated you need to eat 34 kg of oceanic fish to achieve that dosage. Crap.

Multiply that by 3 to 4 doses a day over the period of exposure.
posted by clarknova at 8:39 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

A scientist on the NHK podcasted news broadcast warned that you should *absolutely* avoid taking any iodine until fallout is a clear and present danger, as doing so is harmful. He mentioned, however, that the seaweed-laden diet of people in Japan gives them a natural level of iodine helpful in a fallout situation. I'm skeptical of this last claim . . .

Whatever it takes to keep people calm.
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:41 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

1456: Tepco says it may start pouring water from a helicopter over Fukushima Daiichi's reactor four in the next few days, to cool the spent-fuel pool.

Whoa. Didn't expect to see that as an actual possibility when I woke up this morning.
posted by MultiFaceted at 8:43 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

...sorry about my crap spelling above. This thread deserves better :=/
posted by nj_subgenius at 8:44 AM on March 15, 2011

If you take a quick tour of conspiracy/survivalist type web forums, people are going absolutely nuts

Almost by definition.

You're correct, of course, but the thing is once in a while their fruitcake theories get repeated enough that they trickle down to the mainstream and get accepted by a portion of said mainstream as fact.
posted by smoothvirus at 8:52 AM on March 15, 2011

theredpen, I just saw this IAEA Update on the radiation situation at Fukushima Daiichi #1, which I believe sheds some like on Edano's statements.

At 00:00 UTC on 15 March a dose rate of 11.9 millisieverts (mSv) per hour was observed. Six hours later, at 06:00 UTC on 15 March a dose rate of 0.6 millisieverts (mSv) per hour was observed.

These observations indicate that the level of radioactivity has been decreasing at the site.

posted by ob1quixote at 8:58 AM on March 15, 2011

Asahi reports that the maximum radiation exposure for workers has been raised from 100 milliSieverts to 250. This is for greater efficiency -- we don't have a lot of data on what the highest radiation levels at the plant are right now, but when they were up to 400 milliSieverts/hr (that was in a very localized area) 15 minutes and you would be done for the year. So, even though levels are presumably lower now, there's a real risk of running out of workers.

They say that 250 milliSieverts shouldn't cause any acute radiation poisoning symptoms, but it would cause a slight long-term increase in cancer risk.

(100 milliSieverts = ~ 1% increase in cancer risk, 1 Sievert = ~10% increase in cancer risk)
posted by Jeanne at 9:02 AM on March 15, 2011

Earlier I said that nobody was saying that everything was fine. That was incorrect, The Register is learning today why everyone else was being so careful to hedge their statements.
posted by Skorgu at 9:04 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

w/r/t the workers, can't they be kitted out with protective clothing that will shield them from the radiation? Sorry for the stupid question.
posted by angrycat at 9:08 AM on March 15, 2011

Thanks for the responses to my question.
posted by theredpen at 9:14 AM on March 15, 2011

There are significant limitations on personal protection. Anything heavy enough to stop even just 50% of the gamma rays is going to be very hot to wear under ideal circumstances, much less trying to fight fires. The most likely protective measures in use are lightweight disposable gear that provides protection against contamination from particulates, but no protection against gamma radiation itself.
posted by nomisxid at 9:14 AM on March 15, 2011

I think there is a product called Demron that is supposed to protect against low energy gamma emissions as well as alpha and beta while still being pretty lightweight. It sounds like it can even be layered to provide additional protection.

Protection beyond that seems to be the old school lead lined suits which are incredibly bulky and tiring to work in.
posted by vuron at 9:23 AM on March 15, 2011

then it may be time for local/federal officials to announce that any fears are unfounded.

Would be just like them to lie like that.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:28 AM on March 15, 2011

Ouch.. from article linked by Skorgu:

The whole sequence of events is a ringing endorsement for nuclear power safety. If this – basically nothing – is what happens when decades-old systems are pushed five times and then some beyond their design limits, new plants much safer yet would be able to resist an asteroid strike without problems.

But you wouldn't know that from looking at the mainstream media. Ignorant fools are suggesting on every hand that Japan's problems actually mean fresh obstacles in the way of new nuclear plants here in the UK, Europe and the US.

That can only be true if an unbelievable level of public ignorance of the real facts, born of truly dreadful news reporting over the weekend, is allowed to persist.

...

The idea that the core could burn through the base of its containment is about as credible as the idea that it would remain together in the planet's molten interior and then – having somehow done so and thus reached the centre of the Earth – then ascend back to the surface again at the antipodes.
posted by rainy at 9:32 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

FWIW - this article from The New Yorker - if you stick with it - has implications for much being discussed & dealt with here: The Truth Wears Off - Is There Something Wrong With the Scientific Method?

Well, there's a big difference between experiments to find, say, the combustion point of hydrogen, and something like the effectiveness of anti-psychotics (which is what the article was about). Early science was mostly about things most people would have no trouble verifying in their homes today. As science progressed you got more and more expensive equipment (up to stuff like the large hadron collider) but the results are pretty unambiguous.

But with things like medicine, it's a lot more complicated. Add to that the financial pressures with drug testing and you end up with a mess. No one makes money on the existence of dark matter or whatever.

The thing with these Nuke designs, unfortunately that reactor is a very old design. Even though nuclear reactor design has been getting better over the years new stuff is still going to have to deal with the legacy of this. But this is really more of an engineering thing then a scientific thing. And of course lots of scientists have been warning about the risks of nuclear energy. It's not like Science = Nukes are awesome.

Natural Gas might be the most likely alternative in the US as the regulatory environment surrounding new nuclear power plants is going to get very fighty but it's hardly a "great" alternative.

Ugh, fuck natural gas. We don't actually have that much and you need to frack to get it anyway. And on top of that, natural gas (methane) is itself a greenhouse gas far more powerful then CO₂. So if there are any leaks you lose out on the reduced CO₂ emissions.

---

then it may be time for local/federal officials to announce that any fears are unfounded.

Would be just like them to lie like that.

Huh? Are you talking about the actual risks to people on the west coast, or what people would think about the government's statements? I agree that people won't take them very seriously. But I don't think the risks are very great.
posted by delmoi at 9:38 AM on March 15, 2011

Antipodes. The first good thing to come out of this whole fiasco. I learned a new word.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:40 AM on March 15, 2011

The idea that the core could burn through the base of its containment is about as credible as the idea that it would remain together in the planet's molten interior and then – having somehow done so and thus reached the centre of the Earth – then ascend back to the surface again at the antipodes.

The concern is that the molten uranium/plutonium will melt through the floor, then hit water and cause a steam explosion, blasting uranium/plutonium into the atmosphere.
posted by delmoi at 9:41 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Roland: I think I learned it from "Alice Through the looking glass". Good word.
posted by rainy at 9:42 AM on March 15, 2011

If this – basically nothing

I wouldn't call what's going on at Fukushima Daiichi "basically nothing." It might well be that the situation ends up handled with minimal threat to the people of Japan, via intense and focused effort, but it's not "basically nothing."
posted by KathrynT at 9:42 AM on March 15, 2011

KathrynT: the article is from yesterday, though. At that point it seemed like the worst may be over.
posted by rainy at 9:43 AM on March 15, 2011

An interesting fact about antipodes--I may have learned it here--is that the antipode of any land mass is almost always water, with very few exceptions.
posted by Camofrog at 9:47 AM on March 15, 2011

Point well taken. But if anything, I'd take the events of the past 24 hours as a sign that it's not cold shutdown until it's cold shutdown, if you know what I mean. It's an unstable and evolving situation. It's not Chernobyl (self link to my own LJ), but apart from that kind of clusterfuck I'm uncomfortable writing anything off at this point.
posted by KathrynT at 9:49 AM on March 15, 2011

KathrynT: well, yes, even yesterday that article was rather stupid. Daiichi backup generators failing because of the tsunami is already inexusable in my opinion.
posted by rainy at 9:53 AM on March 15, 2011

An interesting fact about antipodes--I may have learned it here--is that the antipode of any land mass is almost always water, with very few exceptions.

That's not really a fact about antipodes. To the limited extent that it is true, it's mostly just a consequence of the fact that the Pacific Ocean is absurdly humongous.
posted by Flunkie at 9:55 AM on March 15, 2011

Flunkie: together with the fact that Eurasia is also on the largish side.
posted by rainy at 9:57 AM on March 15, 2011

I don't think it's inexcusable. From what I've heard, they took the modeling available for the highest likely tsunami, and doubled it, and put the generators outside that doubled margin. It turns out that the modeling didn't sufficiently predict reality, but this is modeling from 40 years ago. Acting in good faith on the best information you have isn't inexcusable, even if it's regrettable.
posted by KathrynT at 9:57 AM on March 15, 2011 [6 favorites]

KathrynT: there was a 20m tsunami in 19th century in Japan, this one was "just" 10m.
posted by rainy at 9:58 AM on March 15, 2011

KathrynT: there was a 20m tsunami in 19th century in Japan, this one was "just" 10m.

I agree that it does seem that the disaster modeling was insufficient, even the earthquake magnitude seems small even for recorded quakes but I'm not so sure I trust 19th century tsunami records in either direction.
posted by Skorgu at 10:00 AM on March 15, 2011

Delmoi, the article wasn't just - as you stated - about the "the effectiveness of anti-psychotics" If you read the entire article - points like the ending one is what made me think from a thinking standpoint - it was appropriate to link here in regards to the overall debates regarding much related to all that encompasses a debate regarding the safety of nuclear energy:

"The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."
posted by cdalight at 10:02 AM on March 15, 2011

Highest possible and highest likely are two different things. There is plenty to argue about how much money we should be willing to spend for how rare a disaster. You have to balance for example the cost of building a 20m-safe wall versus spending your money on a polio extermination project.
posted by nomisxid at 10:02 AM on March 15, 2011

Well, they could have put the generators underground, or put them in some kind of water-proof containment. It should have been possible to make the generators Tsunami-proof.

And of course there are generator designs that are fail safe at this point.
posted by delmoi at 10:04 AM on March 15, 2011

...the cost of building a 20m-safe wall versus spending your money on a polio extermination project.

Because those are the relevant trade-offs in profit-oriented energy economics. All money not spent on safety goes directly to medical research.
posted by gerryblog at 10:05 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

We blew up actual atomic bombs much closer than these plants are without any significant fallout hitting the US.

And as nickyskye points out, we are still experiencing the health effects of our testing. My husband was born with deformed kidneys from nuclear bomb testing. (Either that or his whole family working in an unsafe uranium mine. Take your pick.) We have much bigger things to worry about as far as health risks in the US than this.
posted by threeturtles at 10:06 AM on March 15, 2011

Wow ... apologies for how I worded that last post :-( And I'm supposedly a writer. Hopefully the gist still got across ....
posted by cdalight at 10:07 AM on March 15, 2011

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think the only way you could get a profit driven company to build a 20m wall would be a government regulatory environment that required it, hence the comparison to a different societal good. I in no way meant it as a literal tradeoff.
posted by nomisxid at 10:08 AM on March 15, 2011

points like the ending one is what made me think from a thinking standpoint - it was appropriate to link here in regards to the overall debates regarding much related to all that encompasses a debate regarding the safety of nuclear energy:

...
"The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."

Well, there has never been away to know what's 'true', just what's verifiable. I just skimmed the article, so I can't really comment. But just because someone claims something is scientific and it turns out not to be doesn't mean there is anything wrong with science, just with that person. Science is self-correcting, it's not supposed to be 100% correct all the time, and it doesn't try to be. Obviously the profit motive with things like big pharma, or nuclear plants or whatever can distort that even more, unfortunately.
posted by delmoi at 10:09 AM on March 15, 2011

nomisxid: the problem is, if there is a 20m tsunami, does that mean all coastal stations on that side may go into critical meltdown at the same time? Maybe then a 20m wall is not such an expensive prospect, or maybe let's not build them on coasts? It seems it was more of a "let's hope this doesn't happen" than rational analysis of risk vs. cost.
posted by rainy at 10:09 AM on March 15, 2011

The simple fact that they are even talking about this sort of contingency makes me think that they have a more substantial problem with the pool than evaporation that is reducing water volume at an alarming rate.

The biggest one being, well, a 400mSv reading between reactors 3 and 4, which is a spot you do not need to hang around in.

The fuel elements in the spent pool need cooling, but they need much less cooling than recently scrammed fuel elements in a reactor core. I suspect that the reason they're talking helo is if they are looking at a slow leak -- say, 50-100 gallons an hour* -- they can get a helo dump into that pool every four hours and keep people from having to walk up to it with a hose.

* Yes, on a scale of 100,000 gallons, that's a slow leak. It's roughly on the order of a home shower (which would range from 60 to 150 gallons per hour, unless you've modified the showerhead.)

KathrynT: there was a 20m tsunami in 19th century in Japan, this one was "just" 10m.

But was it *there*? Location is everything, differently sloped coastlines, river channels, etc, all affect how large a tsunmai *at a given location* is. If the largest ever recorded was 3 meter, and they built a 6 meter wall, then, well, that's how they lost -- they got a 10 meter wave, three times historical record.

If, *in that spot*, they had a 20m tsunami on record, then you have a point. There are lots of places on your typical coastline where a 20m tsunami would do nothing to anything there -- because it's on a 100m tall cliff.

If I have to protect against every conceivable natural disaster case that's hit the US, I need to protect against a Mag 9 earthquake, a Cat V hurricane, at least a 7M tsnuami, and multiple F5 tornadoes. Two of these make perfect sense in Braidwood, IL. Two of them are a stupid waste of money. I trust you can figure out which is which.
posted by eriko at 10:09 AM on March 15, 2011 [7 favorites]

The water table next to the ocean is typically pretty high, so any underground construction would have significantly greater water leakage issues over 40 years, then coupled with a sump pumping system that could fail.
posted by hwyengr at 10:10 AM on March 15, 2011

If I have to protect against every conceivable natural disaster case that's hit the US, I need to protect against a Mag 9 earthquake, a Cat V hurricane, at least a 7M tsnuami, and multiple F5 tornadoes.

You forgot ~~Poland~~ volcanoes.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:14 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

eriko: It has something to do with coastline but also with the location of the quake. So if there was no quake before in a particular location, we are ok to assume there won't be? Your argument is just not convincing. It's not like a particular spot gets hit with 20m tsunamis over and over and another spot never gets anything over 3m. These are just rare, once in a 100 years events and they depend on quake location, and those are unpredictable to a large degree.
posted by rainy at 10:18 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

You forgot ~~Poland~~ volcanoes.

And asteroids.
posted by vivelame at 10:18 AM on March 15, 2011

> Actually, the best thing the nuclear industry could do is to start giving out geiger counters to everyone
> they can. The invisibility of radiation is one of the biggest factors feeding this anxious fear...
>
> As soon as people can have some sense of control over radiation (and as it sinks in that that they're exposed
> to it every second of every day) perhaps some sense of perspective will sink in?

When I worked as a (state-certified) radiation safety officer for a hot lab, Geiger counters weren't considered remotely sensitive enough to detect health hazards. We did wipe surveys and measured the activity on each wipe pad with a scintillation counter.
posted by jfuller at 10:18 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

It seems it was more of a "let's hope this doesn't happen" than rational analysis of risk vs. cost.

I wonder what the arguments for and against were, 40 years ago when it was built. Were they aware of the dangers of coal vs nuke disaster, and made an informed-for-the-times decision, was there societal pressure to use more modern methods as a matter or national pride, out of fear of dependence on external fuels...I haven't seen any documentation of those original decision processes to make that kind of judgment.

I am struck in the before/after pictures, how at this plant, everything placed near the water is damaged, while there's a large zone of untouched trees behind the plant that looks to have escaped tsunami damage. When I first want to go, "sheesh idiots should have put the generators there, obviously" I have to remind myself that I have no clue how seismically stable those spots are. Ground that can support some trees might not be so stable with a multi-ton generator on it.
posted by nomisxid at 10:20 AM on March 15, 2011

Geiger counters weren't considered remotely sensitive enough to detect health hazards.

Surely some must be -- the ones we used to use in the lab, you could switch them up to a higher sensitivity and get readings off of Fiestaware and people's watches.
posted by statolith at 10:21 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Is it possible this reactor incident is detectable at the Super-Kamiokande Neutrino Detector?
posted by zippy at 10:22 AM on March 15, 2011

I looked up the iodine blocking dose for adults (130 mg tablet) and calculated you need to eat 34 kg of oceanic fish to achieve that dosage.

At which point you keel over from mercury poisoning anyway...

It's not Chernobyl (self link to my own LJ), but apart from that kind of clusterfuck I'm uncomfortable writing anything off at this point.

Sigh. We really just don't know how awful this calamity will end up being yet (we know it's not wonderful, but it's not possible yet to put any accurate measure on how awful it will be in the end because it isn't necessarily done getting to be more awful yet, and it's premature to venture any final assessment--exceedingly bad or only very bad--of the severity of an evolving situation; at some point it will be over, then we can assess the overall severity without just pretending to know what we're doing). In the meantime, we can talk about specific things as accurately as possible, like there was this much radioactivity released into the wind at this point in time, and the wind was blowing in this direction. And that might actually help people. But mentally classifying this nasty little complex of events as basically a done deal and making up your mind about what's possible before it actually is over helps nobody and just introduces more noise into the signal.

When this first started, there were plenty of reassurances going around that at least this situation was and--because of various technical factors--would remain less serious than Three Mile Island. That's no longer true. This disaster is now officially ranked as a larger problem than TMI. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the situation will turn out to be as bad or worse than "Chernobyl" too later down the road, but it's a lie to claim we can know that in advance: a flat out lie. It might be comforting, but it's a lie, unless we've finally mastered the art of predicting the future (which we haven't). So it's a lie, but worst of all, it's a distraction that leads to bickering and excites people's feelings against each other, and could potentially foster a kind of complacency with consequences that are just as deadly as any FUD.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:22 AM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

We don't "know" it won't be as bad as Chernobyl in the same way we don't know that a broken finger won't kill us... but it would have to get so much worse in unlikely ways that it's just as inaccurate to say, hey, anything could happen. It would have to get worse by at least four orders of magnitude to be as bad as Chernobyl. That's more than 100,000x worse. There is a middle ground between "nothing bad can happen" and "it could extinguish all life on Honshu".
posted by Justinian at 10:27 AM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

futz: "BBC: #1456: Tepco says it may start pouring water from a helicopter over Fukushima Daiichi's reactor four in the next few days, to cool the spent-fuel pool."

The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. First, there's the well-known example of the helicopter crash at Chernobyl, which everyone involved in this incident must be cognizant of. While surely flying a chopper over the cooling pool at #4 is an order magnitude less suicidal than flying a chopper over the fire at Chernobyl, the idea itself can't help but echo it. Second, there's the limitations to payload sketched out upthread if the chopper idea is in fact based on dumping water.

I wonder if the idea is to use a chopper to position a new water source, like a hose or whatever, such that they would no longer be relying on the presumably fire-damaged systems of the plant nor on whatever means they used to get water back on the fuel in the course of dealing with the fire.
posted by mwhybark at 10:31 AM on March 15, 2011

Zippy, note that this incident is leading to, if anything, reduced production of neutrinos than during normal reactor operation. This added to the fact that reactor core confinement is about the last thing a neutrino is going to give two fucks about.
posted by 7segment at 10:33 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

it's a lie to claim we can know that in advance: a flat out lie.

Yes and no. Within narrow enough range we can pretty well rule out a whole load of things happening. Ducks don't turn into cats, saying so is not a flat-out lie. These reactors are not going to suddenly ramp up to maximum output, explode right through all containment and vent to the air, we know that too. So in the limited terms of "can this be Chernobyl?", yes, we do have a bit of an idea.

There's a spectrum between Chicken Little and "s'all cool". I have little time for those at either end, tbh. Striving to find the middle ground of prediction based on what you rather than just going "it's all unknowable, let's wait and see" is not unreasonable.
posted by bonaldi at 10:35 AM on March 15, 2011 [6 favorites]

If anybody here draws things, I would like a picture of a neutrino giving two fucks about something, please. Thanks in advance.
posted by KathrynT at 10:35 AM on March 15, 2011 [17 favorites]

People said that early about this getting to be as bad as TMI. And a broken finger can develop gangrene under some circumstances (circumstances that become less rare when you foster complacency by dismissing it as just a broken finger, which might lead someone not to get a medical professional's help) and kill a person just as surely as a heart attack. That's not the same thing as "anything" happening; the world is just very complicated in ways we can only partly predict. In any event, it's just premature and reflects a stupid flaw in the human brain calculator that always wants to rush everything to conclusion before it's concluded. If you look for it, you'll see we do this all over the place (how much newsprint is devoted to stories about election outcomes that are still months away?), and its IMO one of our most dangerous and useless cognitive biases.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:37 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Neu-tang clan ain't nothing to ...
posted by zippy at 10:39 AM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

it's a lie to claim we can know that in advance: a flat out lie.

Sure, and theoretically a comet could crash into the Fukushima plant tomorrow and wipe away the eastern half of Japan. Theoretically.

Focusing on what is likely or probable prevents panic like that experienced by someone upthread who wants to know if he should leave NYC for Florida because of the jet stream.
posted by lydhre at 10:46 AM on March 15, 2011

KathrynT:


                   fuck fuck
                  ↗  ↗
             ν_μ →  →  ν_μ

posted by 7segment at 10:46 AM on March 15, 2011 [104 favorites]

If they have to replace 30 feet of water in a 40 ft5 x 40 ft x 45 ft deep pool, that's 360.000 gallons. Not something that is going to happen quick through any hose.

The reports aren't clear if any of the pools are uncovered, but that is what needs to be avoided.
posted by warbaby at 10:47 AM on March 15, 2011

If anybody here draws things, I would like a picture of a neutrino giving two fucks about something, please. Thanks in advance.

Well, I'm a glorified Photoshop artist, so... it might be a little interpretive. You may have to visualize certain interactions.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 10:49 AM on March 15, 2011 [24 favorites]

7segment: Yay!
posted by KathrynT at 10:50 AM on March 15, 2011

fairytale: double yay! I might just be giggly from too much adrenaline but I have laughed and laughed and laughed at both of these, thank you.
posted by KathrynT at 10:51 AM on March 15, 2011

The problem I have with comparing this to past disasters is that the popular images of them are far better known than their real-world consequences. That could be said about nuclear energy in general, of course.

But what I mean is that, for example, the public memory of Three Mile Island has a lot more to do with the public panic, the misrepresenting news reports of the time, and conflation with the movie "The China Syndrome" than it does with what actually happened and what actually ensued.

And I'm saying this as somebody who's mostly inclined against increased reliance on nuclear energy for electrical generation. Don't consider me an apologist. (No I don't have better ideas to offer, and coal in particular is about as equally unappealing. Let's not get derailed by that.)

In particular, continually worrying how this compares on a scale of Three Mile Island to Chernobyl is a bizarre and loathesome obsession. I would really rather know what is going on and understand its effect on man and nature in its own terms in qualifiable ways rather than rank it on a scale of unrelated events.

Thanks, and now back to your current events.
posted by ardgedee at 10:52 AM on March 15, 2011 [11 favorites]

From the NYT, TEPCO says this about the helicopters, “The only ideas we have right now are using a helicopter to spray water from above, or inject water from below,” a power company official said at a news conference. “We believe action must be taken by tomorrow or the day after.”
posted by futz at 10:55 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

ardgedee: I think a whole lot of people were concerned not with what happened at TMI, but the implication that if safety systems can fail so badly and leave personnel disoriented and confused for hours, could it have taken a turn for the worse? When there is a relatively small failure over short timespan, it indicates possibility of a more serious failure over a longer timespan. Regular people can't all get nuclear doctorates and personally examine every plant in the country. They have to trust that the things are run really tight, and that trust was undermined at TMI.
posted by rainy at 11:01 AM on March 15, 2011

The thing with these Nuke designs, unfortunately that reactor is a very old design. Even though nuclear reactor design has been getting better over the years new stuff is still going to have to deal with the legacy of this.

I've seen this point raised a bunch but it's kind of been rubbing me the wrong way. Yes, this design is very old and new designs are far better and have many new safety features, but the old designs are still around. This leads to some questions. How long are plants built today intended to last? Are plants regularly updated with new safety features? How do you force a plant operator to do so given the large costs involved and unlikely benefits (and potential risks) of major improvements?

It's one thing for me to choose to upgrade to a safer car if I see fit, but it's another thing if our collective safety is threatened is threatened by outdated safety systems. The argument is essentially circular: today you say the plant had an old design and this could never happen with a new plant, and then when the new plant starts to meltdown in 40 years you say that it had an old design and it could never happen with a new plant. I don't know what you do about this, especially since the problem applies just as well to chemical plants and dams and essentially any other source of potential public danger, but claiming "oh it's just an old design" doesn't work when the old designs are still out there and they are the ones causing the greatest danger.
posted by zachlipton at 11:01 AM on March 15, 2011 [6 favorites]

NYT:
Reactor Design in Japan Has Long Been Questioned
By TOM ZELLER Jr.
Published: March 15, 2011

I can copy/paste some of the text if people are interested and are unable to view the article.
posted by futz at 11:03 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

There has been nothing that seems to suggest that the situation at the reactors is anywhere close to a Kyshtym incident in scope (level 6 incident) or Chernobyl in scope (level 7). As Eriko stated early in this thread the differences between this incident Kyshtym (the only other level 6 incident) are massive. Kyshtym spread millions of curies worth of radioactive material over thousands of square miles.

I don't think anyone is saying the situation at the plant isn't incredibly serious and doesn't have potential of getting even worse but for the most part the operators at that plant seem to be doing a valiant and largely successful job of preventing a bigger catastrophe. Being overly alarmist about the situation isn't particular wise and can definitely have negative impacts on society.
posted by vuron at 11:03 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

action must be taken by tomorrow
(disclaimer: this would not be a good idea)
posted by anthill at 11:04 AM on March 15, 2011

vuron: it's worth noting that Daiichi is in a much denser populated area than Kyshtym, though.
posted by rainy at 11:04 AM on March 15, 2011

In particular, continually worrying how this compares on a scale of Three Mile Island to Chernobyl is a bizarre and loathesome obsession

I agree! Except that there might be legal/regulatory consequences that very much do care about such comparisons. But this obsession goes both ways. I count more comments, unprompted, in this thread from people eager to say how this is definitely not going to be as bad as Chernobyl than I do from people actually claiming it will be (not that those folks aren't in evidence to--you stop it, too!). I don't think this will be as bad (or as good?) as Chernobyl. This disaster will be exactly as bad as the Fukushima disaster turns out to be. But enough. Is there any more factual information?
posted by saulgoodman at 11:07 AM on March 15, 2011

Is it possible this reactor incident is detectable at the Super-Kamiokande Neutrino Detector?

Well, if the plants give off neutrinos, the plant containment wouldn't stop them, so loss of containment wouldn't increase the number of neutrinos leaving the plant.
posted by delmoi at 11:09 AM on March 15, 2011

on airdrops:

4.40pm: An update on the plan to drop water on the pour water on reactor No. 4 at the Fukushima Daiichi power station from Kyodo News:
The ministry began preparing to dispatch a ground self-defence force helicopter unit in Chiba prefecture, seeing that it would be possible for the helicopters to apply the same technique used for putting out a forest fire - namely, dropping water from the air.
But for now, the spent fuel pool is being cooled by police and firefighters on ground, after the government judged that an aerial approach ran the risk of damaging the spent nuclear fuel underwater and exposing SDF personnel to radiation, according to Kitazawa.
''We will perform our duty when we reach the stage where (the temperature rise in spent fuel) begins to settle down and we decide to drop large amounts of water from the sky,'' he said.

I hope the police/firefighters survive that whole ordeal...
posted by yeoz at 11:09 AM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Saul, if this were an ideal world we would all simply sit down at this point and wait patiently for further light. But such is not the nature of the intertubes.
posted by jfuller at 11:11 AM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Are plants regularly updated with new safety features?

The NYT article futz mentions does point out that the BWR-3 Mark I can be retrofitted with more effective measures to vent pressure and improve the torus:

The Mark 1 reactors in the United States have undergone a variety of modifications since these initial concerns were raised. Among these, according to Mr. Lochbaum, were changes to the doughnut-shaped torus — a water-filled vessel encircling the primary containment vessel that is used to reduce pressure in the reactor. In early iterations, steam rushing from the primary vessel into the torus under high pressure could cause the vessel to literally jump off the floor.

In the late 1980s, all Mark 1 reactors in the United States were also ordered to be retrofitted with venting systems to help reduce pressure in an overheating situation, rather than allow it to build up in a containment system that regulators were concerned could not take it.

I suspect they're discussing hydrogen recombiner technology, among other measures, but cannot be certain.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 11:11 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Chernobyl clean-up expert slams Japan, IAEA

"Greed in the nuclear industry and corporate influence over the U.N. watchdog for atomic energy may doom Japan to a spreading nuclear disaster, one of the men brought in to clean up Chernobyl said on Tuesday."

posted by ericb at 11:12 AM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

Probably not much information for the next couple hours. TEPCO put up a new press release about radiation levels at Daiichi and Daini but I'm just getting 404 errors when I try to load the pdfs. :(
posted by Jeanne at 11:13 AM on March 15, 2011

rainy - That's true, but comparing Japan's current nuclear events with Three Mile Island does not give us a realistic understanding of the events and consequences going on now. Instead, it is an emotional gut-check on whether we would feel as bad, wherever we stand right now, if Japan's reactors were in southeastern Pennsylvania.

The failures could be more catastrophic to this plant site than previous events have been to their locations, but with fewer human and natural consequences (due to better containment, better emergency reaction, or something else), or the failures could be less catastrophic and the external consequences worse; that's difficult to state in a simple TMI->Chernobyl comparison scale, setting aside the emotional baggage such a comparison carries.

There are horrible things going on, and there are real-world metrics regarding the reactions to them - evacuations in ten or 20 kilometer radii around the plants, web-accessible near-real-time data, official statements and a phalanx of experts and educated amateurs parsing and charting them to construct a timeline of what's really going on and what may ensue.

Many of these are things that were unavailable to us during the last disasters. We are a hell of a lot more knowledgeable about what's happening now, within an hour of its happening, than we ever were regarding previous disasters. And that's despite evasion, obfuscation, and lying on the part of corporate and government officials.

If we're going to benchmark this, let's use it as its own baseline metric.
posted by ardgedee at 11:13 AM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

There has been nothing that seems to suggest that the situation at the reactors is anywhere close to a Kyshtym incident in scope (level 6 incident) or Chernobyl in scope (level 7).

Except that's exactly where it is now:

France's Nuclear Safety Authority said the disaster now equated to a six on the seven-point international scale for nuclear accidents, ranking the crisis second only in gravity to Chernobyl.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:15 AM on March 15, 2011

Question for people who have actual knowledge in this area:

Suppose that the current situation evolves into what looks like the worst-likely scenario, given what's happening now. I take it this would include the fuel of reactor #2 breaching its containment somehow, and maybe a continuing release of stuff from the spent fuel pool. (Understanding that we don't currently know how likely those outcomes are.)

What would this mean for Tokyo? I think the most pressing question on people's minds is, is there a plausible scenario in which this turns into a dangerous amount of radiation for Tokyo? (Again, understanding that such a scenario is unlikely.)

Which types of news are bad only for the 30 km zone, vs which are bad for the much wider radius including Tokyo?
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:15 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Saul, there's actually debate about the French point of view.

Here's the critera.

And here's the debate seen at Wikipedia.
posted by mwhybark at 11:22 AM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

ardgedee: Well, I can't disagree with that. But I think what is criticized as alarmism may be, in fact, not alarmism but the idea that, for example, breach of containment is already so distressing that comparisons to more serious accidents are not out of line. We should of course keep in mind that no accident is precisely like any other accident. I hope that's understood.
posted by rainy at 11:25 AM on March 15, 2011

saul, to you, what does Chernobyl mean to you? To me, it's as much the steps that got there - poor plant design, ill advised experiments - as it is the end result - a nuclear disaster with fallout over hundreds of square miles.
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:27 AM on March 15, 2011

From asahi.com:

Helicopter water drop requested from American military

Repair work at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant became difficult after radiation climbed to an unusually high level. At reactor four, where there has been an explosion, workers are not entering the building, and TEPCO has requested a water drop by helicopter. An explosion at reactor two has also damaged the suppression chamber. Prime Minister Kan requested residents to remain indoors as a high concentration of radioactive material has leaked.

According to TEPCO's Fukushima office, workers were able to determine that an 8-square-meter hole has opened in two places in the northwest wall of reactor four. Radiation of 400 milliSv/hr had been measured on the fourth floor inside the building. 500 milliSv/hr can lead to a reduction in lymphocytes. The spent rod fuels are located on the fifth floor, but workers are unable to verify the condition of the pool because of the high level of radiation. At noon it was verified that the pool was completely filled, but after that they have been unable to determine how full the pool was. At 9:38 a.m. they confirmed that a fire had broken out on the fourth floor. It extinguished itself naturally, but with nothing except the structure to obstruct them, radioactive materials could leak outside.

Radiation levels of 100 milliSieverts/hr were recorded not just inside reactor 4 but in the surrounding area.

I have to stop translating and get off the computer, but they want to do the water drop on the 16th.
posted by Jeanne at 11:31 AM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

The Jeff Masters (meteorologist) blog post linked above says that rain is forecast for the area, and comments on other aspects of the weather there that will affect the spread of radiation. Excerpts:

"Rain is very efficient at removing radioactive particles from the air, and there is the threat of surface and ground water contamination where significant concentrations of radioactive material get rained out. By Wednesday, most of the rain will be gone, and predominately northwesterly winds will build in behind the departing low pressure system. This flow regime will stay in place for the remainder of the week, keeping radioactive emissions from the nuclear plant away from Tokyo, and headed out to sea at low altitudes near the surface.

Ground level releases of radioactivity are typically not able to be transported long distances in significant quantities, since much of the material settles to the ground a few kilometers from the source. If there is a major explosion with hot gases that shoots radioactivity several kilometers high, that would increase the chances for long range transport, since now the ground is farther away, and the particles that start settling out will stay in the air longer before encountering the ground. Additionally, winds are stronger away from ground, due to reduced friction and presence of the jet stream aloft. These stronger winds will transport radioactivity greater distances.

[...]One case where a ground level release might get lofted to high altitudes is when the source region is located near an approaching low pressure system (extratropical cyclone), as is the case today. [...] However, there is often considerable precipitation in both of these [systems approaching the power plants today], which will tend to remove large quantities of radiation before it can be transported long distances. There will be some radiation from Japan lofted to high altitudes today by the low pressure system affecting the region, and if the radiation manages to escape being rained out, it could potentially be transported thousands of miles over the next week. A run of the HYSPLIT model following the path of a radioactive cloud emitted at 12 UTC (8am EDT) this morning shows the radioactivity being lofted 4 - 5 km in altitude and being transported over Alaska over the coming week. After a week of transport, this cloud will be considerably diluted, and I strongly doubt the radioactivity would be harmful to human health if rain or snow were to carry it to the ground over Alaska or Canada, assuming that the radiation levels currently being advertised at ground level in Japan are correct."

posted by LobsterMitten at 11:34 AM on March 15, 2011

TEPCO: Spraying water from air "difficult"

However, the firm concluded that it would be extremely difficult to spray water from a helicopter as the hole is dozens of meters from the storage pool and a helicopter can only carry a limited amount of water on a single flight.

Workers are currently unable to approach the storage pool due to the high radiation levels. Tokyo Electric Company is studying the possibility of using fire engines and other options to inject water into the reactor.
posted by futz at 11:35 AM on March 15, 2011

BBC:

#
1823: The BBC's Chris Hogg in Tokyo says there are now believed to have been four blasts at Fukushima. The fourth reportedly occured in reactor four, where spent fuel rods are stored, he says.
posted by futz at 11:38 AM on March 15, 2011

Workers are currently unable to approach the storage pool due to the high radiation levels. Tokyo Electric Company is studying the possibility of using fire engines and other options to inject water into the reactor.

Huh? My impression was that fire engines *were* already being used to pump coolant into Reactors 1 and 3, and that Reactor 4 didn't need coolant, by virtue of the fact that it was not fueled.
posted by schmod at 11:39 AM on March 15, 2011

saul, to you, what does Chernobyl mean to you?

To me, nothing that's relevant in this context. I'm not especially worried about how the US might be impacted either (it won't be in any significant way; we've just always gotta make everything about us). For now, all I really care about is whether or not any people are going to get hurt and/or die, and at any given time, what any of those people might be able to do to minimize the risks, if anything. What else could possibly matter right now? I mean, apart from the more central efforts to achieve those same ends that are dramatically playing out right now at the plant itself.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:39 AM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

schmod: it does have spent fuel, which also needs cooling.
posted by rainy at 11:41 AM on March 15, 2011

Just wanted to say that I've been alternately at home, in bed, and at work over the last 24 hours and have not ceased to have this thread open on the laptop / phone / desktop in order to keep up with events. Thank all of you for the translation work and updates, they are much faster here than anywhere else.
posted by lazaruslong at 11:45 AM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

There was a report tha two US Navy fire trucks were turned away from the plant earlier, not needed.
posted by fixedgear at 11:45 AM on March 15, 2011

A quite reasonable article from the NYT on the spent fuel storage pools.
posted by Morbuto at 11:46 AM on March 15, 2011

>If I have to protect against every conceivable natural disaster case that's hit the US, I need
>to protect against a Mag 9 earthquake, a Cat V hurricane, at least a 7M tsnuami, and
>multiple F5 tornadoes. Two of these make perfect sense in Braidwood, IL. Two of them are a
>stupid waste of money. I trust you can figure out which is which.

From the USGS:

The possibility of damage to parts of Illinois from earthquakes originating outside the State is dominated by the threat of a repeat of the 1811 - 1812 New Madrid great earthquakes, which were felt over at least 2 million square miles from Canada to New Orleans, and in Boston and Washington, D.C. There are few reports from the area, but intensities VII to IX could have been experienced over the entire State. (see intensities).

Go ahead and spend some money on that earthquake-resistant reactor in Illinois :-)
posted by the Real Dan at 11:51 AM on March 15, 2011

About the comparison with Chernobyl - the Automatic Earth article on Fukushima vs Chernobyl is useful. Here's an excerpt:

The risk in Japan is primarily meltdown, not a Chernobyl-style run-away nuclear reaction.

From this article and other things posted above, I gather that the design of the reactor at Chernobyl was different in at least two important ways:

-Chernobyl's reactor was not "shut down" in the sense that the Fukushima reactors are. At Fukushima, the control rods have been inserted fully and thus there is no longer a layman's "nuclear reaction" going on (that is, the core is not "critical"); they are just trying to cool down the residual and slowing heat that's still left over. But in Chernobyl, the core was still critical, the "nuclear reaction" was still happening while the accident was taking place - so the materials that were ejected from the plant were radioactive in a much more dangerous sense. (Though, this article suggests that, at Fukushima, there is a risk that if the fuel rods melt and the fuel runs down into a puddle in the basement, it could become critical again, that is the "nuclear reaction" could re-start.)

-Chernobyl's reactor had a graphite component, which caught fire - the fire is what lofted the radioactive material high into the atmosphere and allowed it to spread as widely as it did. The article refers to this as a "nuclear volcano". The Fukushima reactors don't have this flammable graphite component, so a fire of that type is not possible. (But maybe other types of fire are possible?)
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:02 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

The Fukushima reactors don't have this flammable graphite component, so a fire of that type is not possible. (But maybe other types of fire are possible?)

There has already been fire.
posted by Flunkie at 12:10 PM on March 15, 2011

Crowdsourcing radiation monitoring from Tokyo to Calif. -- "A relative dearth of official information on radiation levels relating to the intensifying nuclear crisis in Japan is leading some to turn to crowdsourced options."
posted by ericb at 12:12 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

And Automatic Earth's update from today - mostly this is a recap of information people following this thread will already have, but she includes her assessment of the nuclear risk to the region. (She did a master's on nuclear safety, so has some specific knowledge.):

It is important to note that the distribution and level of radioactive contamination from the Fukushima disaster is likely to be very much less than at Chernobyl, as boiling water reactors (BWRs) like those at Fukushima do not have the potential for the same failure mode as occurred at the Chernobyl RBMK plant. Chernobyl suffered a nuclear explosion on an abrupt power surge aggravated by a moderator fire.

The Fukushima reactors, where the nuclear reaction had been immediately halted by the lowering of control rods, are instead at risk of meltdown from excess decay heat in the absence of the ability to dissipate that heat. In a full meltdown scenario, the molten core would melt through the pressure vessel and concrete containment, particularly if these have already been compromised by explosive force. The core could melt down into the groundwater, causing steam explosions. Relatively local contamination could eventually be considerable, depending on the final scope of this rapidly developing situation, but I would not expect major international contamination as happened following Chernobyl.

Even within Japan I would not expect widespread gross levels of contamination even under a worst case scenario.

The article also describes the types of radiation that could be released, including the time span over which each is a risk (days vs longer) and which body systems they affect.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:14 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Can one of you excellent people with expertise in this area give me a brief sketch of the best case scenario at Fukushima, and the worst case?
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:14 PM on March 15, 2011

There has already been fire.

Yes. But we think it was fire near the spent fuel containment, not a fire in the reactor itself, I belive. As I understand it the spent fuel is "dirtier", but it is also less hot than an ongoing critical nuclear reaction, so the fire was easier to put out than a graphite + critical nuclear reaction fire was.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:16 PM on March 15, 2011

Which of these would be worse in terms of amount of radioactivity release into atmosphere: a long uncontrolled fire either at breached containment or at spent fuel tank, or an explosion if core melts through to water table? Or this depends on how long and how bad the fire would be and/or temp of core when it reaches water table? (Neither of these scenarios are likely at this point).
posted by rainy at 12:16 PM on March 15, 2011

the worst case?

Now that all previously credible worst case scenarios have appeared, I'm going with North Korean frogmen with machining skills and a nanotech uranium separator.
posted by zippy at 12:18 PM on March 15, 2011 [7 favorites]

That's only because the giant robots scenario is now best case.
posted by mwhybark at 12:22 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Google--> search Images--> kittens Related searches: cute kittens cats and kittens funny kittens kittens and puppies baby kittens
posted by jokeefe at 12:24 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

best case: they get sufficient pumping capacity to where it's needed. Things are bad and don't get worse.

worst case: the contamination increases to where all personnel have to be pulled out. Three core meltdowns and all fuel storage boils dry and catches on fire. This is very bad.
posted by warbaby at 12:24 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh great, two headed kitten picture. Just what I needed right now.
posted by jokeefe at 12:25 PM on March 15, 2011 [13 favorites]

I for one welcome our giant robot overlords, only could they please use their giant metal claws to close up any leaks kthx
posted by atrazine at 12:26 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I thought worst case was the zombie apocalypse.
posted by zerbinetta at 12:27 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

It would have to burn through the concrete containment area, I assume since it is a "containment area" that it is made to withstand such stresses ... if it has not been damanged?
posted by geoff. at 12:29 PM on March 15, 2011

Morbuto: "A quite reasonable article from the NYT on the spent fuel storage pools"

Yeesh. No wonder they're calling for help, above and beyond the toll of time in on the problem already.

I keep wishing I could send pizza or something. Maybe I can send donuts to the Japanese MeFites as a proxy, and drop some cash on the Red Cross. No, I should do both of those things regardless.
posted by mwhybark at 12:30 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

its IMO one of our most dangerous and useless cognitive biases.
It's also what keeps us alive. It stops people with cut fingers from being rushed into intensive care and prevents a panicked mass-evacuation of Tokyo that would certainly result in injuries or deaths.

We take actions based on reasonable predictions based on past experience and probability. Sometimes that means we run away from tigers, sometimes it means we linger too long as the waves approach. But it's how we work.

You do it, too, as you say America won't be impacted in any significant way. How can you possibly say that before this has all played out? The whole event hasn't even finished yet, has it?

Despite the 50 people furiously favouriting at the start of the thread, panic rarely helps a situation. But people have a tendency to panic. Assessing the situation in a way that allows them to rule out their worst fears ("it might turn into Chernobyl! I should flee to Orkney!") and hopefully delays panic is not one of our most dangerous and useless congnitive biases.
posted by bonaldi at 12:30 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Press Release (Mar 15,2011)
Damage to the Unit 4 Nuclear Reactor Building at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station

At approximately 6:00am, a loud explosion was heard from within the
power station. Afterwards, it was confirmed that the 4th floor rooftop
area of the Unit 4 Nuclear Reactor Building had sustained damage.

After usage, fuel is stored in a pool designated for spent fuel.

Plant conditions as well as potential outside radiation effects are
currently under investigation.

TEPCO, along with other involved organizations, is doing its best to
contain the situation. Simultaneously, the surrounding environment is
being kept under constant surveillance.

Combined with this: "A 1997 study by the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island described a worst-case disaster from uncovered spent fuel in a reactor cooling pool. It estimated 100 quick deaths would occur within a range of 500 miles and 138,000 eventual deaths.

The study also found that land over 2,170 miles would be contaminated and damages would hit $546 billion. " NYT

Lets hope not....
posted by dougiedd at 12:31 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Clearing up nuclear questions -- "How did Japan’s nuclear crisis happen, and how could it end? To some extent, the experts’ answers depend on how they feel about nuclear power."
posted by ericb at 12:33 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

NYT reports, regarding the fire yesterday I take it:
"Hydrogen gas bubbling up from chemical reactions set off by the hot fuel rods [in the spent fuel storage pool] produced a powerful explosion on Tuesday morning that blew a 26-foot-wide hole in the side of reactor No. 4 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. A fire there may have been caused by machine oil in a nearby facility, inspectors from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission said, according to an American official."
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:34 PM on March 15, 2011

I thought worst case was not one, but multiple Godzillas?

This seems to be getting worse and worse. If everything was to end right now with no more radioactive leakage or anything, would this site be usable? Not the buildings but would the land be able to be used or would it be restricted area like what happened to the area around Chernobyl? Or is it something that can be cleaned up?
posted by lilkeith07 at 12:35 PM on March 15, 2011

best case: they get sufficient pumping capacity to where it's needed. Things are bad and don't get worse.

So the fuel rods are kept cool and there are no further releases of radiation? What would happen to the plant in this scenario? Also, how likely is this, compared to the more dire predictions?
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:37 PM on March 15, 2011

absolute worst case scenario is that north korea takes this as an opportunity and invades japan... JSDF is diverted towards fighting off invaders instead of search-and-rescue or even helping out at the nuclear plant... cheapo shitty korean nukes are flung around to deal with the american warships... stray radiation from that obscures how bad the situation at the fukushima nuclear plant actually is.... while our heroes at the power plants are busy bunkering down to stop the invasion from zombies that have risen from the ocean... all which is immediately rendered moot by the doomsday-asteroid hurtling towards and cratering all of the northern hemisphere.

I would say that has a <1% chance of happening, though.
posted by sokkupapetto at 12:37 PM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

Can we stay on topic please?
posted by futz at 12:39 PM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

lilkeith07: yes, contamination outside of buildings is not that bad so far. It will be cheaper to rebuild than clean up the buildings, though.
posted by rainy at 12:40 PM on March 15, 2011

I would say that has a <1>

SO THERE'S A CHANCE?!

*runs around screaming, flailing his arms*
posted by entropicamericana at 12:40 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

Jeffrey Lewis of the Monterey Institute of International Studies points to an alarming new statement by the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, which confirms that the fire in the No 4 reactor today lasted for around three hours:

Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 reactor
• At 9:38am on March 15, a fire was discovered on the third floor of the secondary containment building.
• At 12:29pm on March 15, Tepco confirmed extinguishing of the fire.

Dr Lewis is concerned by this revelation, and writes on his blog Arms Control Wonk:

This is very bad news – yesterday, I noted this was the wildcard scenario. The radiation release was very large – detectors recorded a measurement of 400 millisieverts per hour. Milli, not micro. People can stop with the comparisons to airline flights or X-rays, unless you get your X-rays performed at DARHT.

If you are scoring at home, most folks I know seem to think we are at INES 6 now, heading for 7 (and the C-word) unless Tepco catches a break.

Presumably the "C-word" here is Chernobyl. The INES is the International Nuclear Event Scale, which runs from 1 to 7 – with Chernobyl being a Level 7, meaning a "major accident" – the only one on record so far. cite
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 12:41 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Please, North Koreans can't even do a good haircut.
posted by rainy at 12:41 PM on March 15, 2011

The NK and Godzilla jokes are YouTube comments-worthy
posted by KokuRyu at 12:42 PM on March 15, 2011 [9 favorites]

to stop the invasion from zombies that have risen from the ocean ... I would say that has a <1%

Latest TEPCO press release: "there is the sound of squelching noises heard and wet footprints seen along the shore at Fukushima Daiichi ..."
posted by zippy at 12:42 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

All the problems are related to too much thermal heat. Cool it down and things will still be radioactive, but they will get stable. Bad, but stable. Without more resources, not very likely. With more, maybe.

I can't believe they turned away those fire trucks. A lot of the problems are shortage of resources. Like the pumps running out of fuel the other day.
posted by warbaby at 12:43 PM on March 15, 2011

would all the children on this thread please cease with the offensive humor
posted by dougiedd at 12:44 PM on March 15, 2011

Some people use humor to deal with horror.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:45 PM on March 15, 2011 [16 favorites]

Thanks for this eriko. And may I thank you more generally for your contributions to this thread. I find myself scanning for your screenname first after every refresh.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:46 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Some people use humor to deal with horror.

Well, how about less Gilbert Gottfried and more Albert Brooks.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:47 PM on March 15, 2011 [7 favorites]

CunningLinguist, I found the Architecture Week and World Nuclear News links particularly informative.
posted by tizzie at 12:50 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Al Jazeera has an interactive map.

"We've got a new map online, which you can interact with by clicking here. It gives you geo-tagged tweets, YouTube videos, Ushahidi reports - and earthquake sites, news reports, seismic data... and photos. Check it out."
posted by futz at 12:52 PM on March 15, 2011

Anyone: are flights available out of Tokyo? Is transport to Narita from Tokyo available?
posted by dougiedd at 12:52 PM on March 15, 2011

Helicopter water drop requested from American military

BTW, what is the U.S. military doing, beyond moving ships around to get out of the way of potential fallout?

The WaPo blog said this:
"The Obama administration’s most vocal advocate for nuclear power, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, says American radiation monitoring equipment will arrive in Japan in two hours, Reuters reported."

...but I haven't read anything else about cooperative efforts.
posted by torticat at 12:55 PM on March 15, 2011

Operation Tomodachi
posted by KokuRyu at 12:57 PM on March 15, 2011

Wow, I had no idea that the problems really started with damage to the spent fuel pool at Reactor 2 (assuming that the quoted anonymous nuclear exec has accurate info). Relevant bit from the NY Times story on spent fuel pools linked above:

The threat is considered so severe that at the start of the crisis Friday, immediately after the shattering earthquake, Fukushima plant officials focused their attention on a damaged storage pool for spent nuclear fuel at the No. 2 reactor at Daiichi, said a nuclear executive who requested anonymity because his company is not involved in the emergency response at the reactors and is wary of antagonizing other companies in the industry.

The damage prompted the plant’s management to divert much of the attention and pumping capacity to that pool, the executive added. The shutdown of the other reactors then proceeded badly, and problems began to cascade.

posted by dialetheia at 12:59 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

The strange link between samurai swords and Japan's nuclear reactors
posted by homunculus at 12:59 PM on March 15, 2011

Spent Fuel Pool Storage (PDF) leads into zirconium cladding fires. They are hotter than the decay heat, so very bad. Probably not too different from a magnesium fire. I've seen those. They explode when water hits them. It's scary as hell.
posted by warbaby at 1:00 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Right, KokuRyu, but I meant specifically to do with Fukushima.

(And I didn't mean that post to sound so down on the U.S.; I was just looking for information.)
posted by torticat at 1:01 PM on March 15, 2011

BTW, what is the U.S. military doing, beyond moving ships around to get out of the way of potential fallout?

Apparently there are reports that they helped with the fire in reactor 4. I haven't seen that confirmed by US officials though. I know we have also sent experts from the nuclear regulatory commission to provide help to Japanese regulators. US search and rescue teams have also been combing the rubble to search for survivors and identify the dead in the earthquake stricken region.
posted by zachlipton at 1:01 PM on March 15, 2011

The threat is considered so severe that at the start of the crisis Friday, immediately after the shattering earthquake, Fukushima plant officials focused their attention on a damaged storage pool for spent nuclear fuel at the No. 2 reactor at Daiichi

Interesting. If proves to be true, it's pretty direct evidence of misleading (intentionally or unintentionally) the public, as this is the first I've heard that the storage pools have been an issue all along. Certainly TEPCO's press releases only mention the reactor core issues, never spent fuel storage pools. Has there been any questioning or explanation of this?
posted by zachlipton at 1:13 PM on March 15, 2011 [7 favorites]

It's also what keeps us alive. It stops people with cut fingers from being rushed into intensive care and prevents a panicked mass-evacuation of Tokyo that would certainly result in injuries or deaths.

No, that's what panicking or succumbing to alarmism does. I didn't say we should be more alarmist or panicked either. In fact I said we shouldn't be that. We just shouldn't keep lying and saying we can predict the future certainly when we can't.

But people have a tendency to panic. Assessing the situation in a way that allows them to rule out their worst fears ("it might turn into Chernobyl! I should flee to Orkney!") and hopefully delays panic is not one of our most dangerous and useless congnitive biases.

People also suffer from the opposite tendency, and will white wash unpleasant realities just to feel better even if that ends up causing them harm. Both tendencies are stupid and destructive, and we don't need either of them.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:14 PM on March 15, 2011

worst case: the contamination increases to where all personnel have to be pulled out. Three core meltdowns and all fuel storage boils dry and catches on fire. This is very bad.

How bad is bad? What happens if the three reactor cores melt down?
posted by saulgoodman at 1:16 PM on March 15, 2011

Fuel storage catches fire and chernobyl might be surpassed
posted by dougiedd at 1:19 PM on March 15, 2011

Fuel storage catches fire and chernobyl might be surpassed

Even if this happens, it still can't explode as bad as Chernobyl, spewing the radiation everywhere (right?). It'd suck for the immediate area, though...
posted by BungaDunga at 1:21 PM on March 15, 2011

I'm with Bunga on the severity issue. Hell we're all speculating though. At least until eriko gets back.
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:24 PM on March 15, 2011

Requoting the NYT:
"A 1997 study by the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island described a worst-case disaster from uncovered spent fuel in a reactor cooling pool. It estimated 100 quick deaths would occur within a range of 500 miles and 138,000 eventual deaths.

The study also found that land over 2,170 miles would be contaminated and damages would hit $546 billion. " NYT
posted by dougiedd at 1:27 PM on March 15, 2011

The strange case of Josef Oehmen.
posted by norm at 1:27 PM on March 15, 2011 [6 favorites]

"The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, has said he wants more timely and detailed information about developments at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant from the Japanese authorities. "The problem is very complicated, we do not have all the details of the information so what we can do is limited," he told a news conference in Vienna, according to Reuters. "I am trying to further improve the communication." Mr Amano said the UN agency planned to send a team of experts to Japan, possibly to help with environmental monitoring."
posted by futz at 1:27 PM on March 15, 2011

To saulgoodman's question: As I understand it (just from reading articles, I have no expertise), if a reactor core melts down, there are three main extra-bad outcomes possible:
1. the nuclear fuel melts into a puddle, which is much harder to cool than the fuel rods+control rods configuration, and which has a chance of "going critical" that is having a nuclear reaction re-start.
2. the puddle of fuel can melt out through its containment and then sit in the open at ground level
3. the puddle of fuel can melt downward, through the rock under the plant into groundwater, and that that could cause an explosion which would spread radioactive materials more widely. (It would also contaminate groundwater, but I gather the explosion is the more worrying thing in terms of what we think of as widespread catastrophe)

But I don't know how to quantify the "badness" of these outcomes or how widely the radiation would spread, or what type of radiation it would be, or for how long it would continue.
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:31 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

the UN agency planned to send a team of experts to Japan

Oh gee what's the rush? It's not like the situation is precarious at best, given that every major international news crew has now been evacuated, and the Japanese authorities have told everyone within a certain radius not to leave their homes.
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 1:34 PM on March 15, 2011

yes, the UN is really on top of things
probably takes a while to pack and all
posted by dougiedd at 1:35 PM on March 15, 2011

Even if this happens, it still can't explode as bad as Chernobyl, spewing the radiation everywhere (right?). It'd suck for the immediate area, though...

If it gets bad.. Well, if it gets bad, they'll need a lot of bio robots to bring the situation back under control. One way to look at it that I'm pondering.. Until they get to the biorobot point, it probably hasn't gotten that bad.

Everybody is looking for a simple answer. Like, "Once X happens, the world ends, and we don't have to worry anymore, right?" I'm doing it too. Real world problems aren't like that, ever. It is always a million competing concerns churning around in a continuous process that is sometimes in balance, but other times blowing up or dieing or whatever. Just that we normally have experience and habit to fall back on to deal with that stuff, and we don't spend much time thinking about it.

For example, up thread somebody said:

at some point it will be over, then we can assess the overall severity without just pretending to know what we're doingNo, not true. At some point we will draw a line and say "now it is time to spend resources consolidating our knowledge." The thing will still be going on though. Chernobyl is still a problem today. We are still threatened by hair trigger nuclear missiles.

posted by Chuckles at 1:36 PM on March 15, 2011

It seems as though the spent fuel is the most immediate problem - a very big problem. Let's hope they can somehow continue to supply water into the storage tanks. However, the extreme heat and radiation, as well as the general ruined state of the reactor buildings, seem to make this difficult.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:36 PM on March 15, 2011

@LobsterMitten: There are a few worrying scenarios:

1. If the operators fail to keep injecting water into the reactor vessels, allowing the core to melt down, the molten fuel could collect at the bottom of the reactor vessel, melt through it, drop onto the concrete below and start a chemical reaction with the concrete.

"An important source of aerosol input to reactor containment during an unarrested severe reactor accident comes from the interactions of core debris with structural concrete. Classic reactor accident sequences envisage a point at which core debris will penetrate the reactor pressure vessel and fall into the reactor cavity (see Fig. 3.9-1). The core debris will be a mixture of molten uranium dioxide fuel, zirconium dioxide and zirconium metal from the fuel cladding, structural steel and fission products. Much of the core debris will be molten when it penetrates the reactor pressure vessel. If the core debris is not quenched as it emerges from the vessel, it will thermally attack the structural concrete in the reactor cavity. If the core debris is quenched but the quenched debris is not coolable, core debris will reheat and eventually become hot enough to thermally attack the concrete." Source: http://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/docs/2009/csni-r2009-5.pdf, page 100. Page 103 has a breakdown of the masses of aerosol particles that would be released in this scenario, I read the graph as roughly 200kg fission products, 1400kg fuel&structures and 4200kg aerosolised concrete. However without an explosive release of pressure the dispersal of these aerosolised compounds may be limited. A significant proportion of these aerosols would be retained within the reactor building though unfortunately two mitigation measures (the secondary containment blowout walls and the venting filters) have already been compromised.

2. If all the Zircaloy fuel cladding oxidises (and as has been shown from the explosions it has been oxidising), as much as 2722 kg of hydrogen would be produced (depending on the plant, but at least it's an order of magnitude). According to WolframAlpha that amount of hydrogen would have an energy content of 393GJ. Of course, to release that energy Oxygen needs to be available which it isn't in the reactor vessel for now, though the possibility that the suppression tank could be damaged is worrying in this respect. Source: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/6980202-feK1wp/6980202.pdf

3. Evaporation of the water in the spent fuel storage tanks leading to overheating and Zircalloy burn of the spent fuel (as discussed in the NYT article mentioned above). This would be very bad due to the considerable mass of fuel stored there ,the lack of any containment mitigating release into the atmosphere, and the composition of fission products in the spent fuel. However on the positive side the spent fuel storage tanks are quite accessible to refilling with water, be it by helicopter or fire truck... Here is the source for this scenario: Severe accidents in spent fuel pools in support of generic safety, Issue 82 (many thanks to the anonymous donor who's contribution made it available online).
One interesting quote: The likelihood of clad fire initiation is most sensitive to the decay heat level and the storage rack configuration (which controls the extent of natural convection cooling). (page 50).
Unfortunately the spent fuel in these reactors has been re-racked multiple times to allow more fuel to be stored, which in the case of the water evaporating is bad both because of the increase in fuel mass and the loss of convection cooling.

Other scenarios that I haven't found to be well-characterised in the literature are a steam explosion due to the core melt hitting water in the drywell or the effect of a hydrogen explosion in the reactor vessel or primary containment. Core melt through to groundwater does not appear a likely scenario.
posted by Morbuto at 1:38 PM on March 15, 2011 [11 favorites]

Lobster: the containment is designed in a way that separates molten core into several subcritical masses. Potentially core hitting ground water is very, very bad because that was considered the worst case scenario at Chernobyl that did not happen. But that's possibly because temps were much higher at Chernobyl. On top of that, if there's a large scale explosion, it will damage other nearby containment units.
posted by rainy at 1:38 PM on March 15, 2011

fair enough chuckles--the immediate crisis may be "over" to some qualified degree at some future point in time. but i agree with the gist of your comment completely.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:43 PM on March 15, 2011

@saulgoodman: Absolute worst case is that all of the radionuclides contained in the 6 reactors on site ends up in the atmosphere. Each core may have a radioactive inventory of somewhere around 5 MegaCuries, and each spent fuel pool could have as much as 50 MegaCuries for a total of 330 MegaCuries (apologies for the lack of citation. I don't have an authoritative source, but that's about the range I see listed on the web for other reactors).

For reference, Chernobyl released somewhere 50 and 100 MegaCuries to the atmosphere, something like 40-60% of its inventory. You can read up on the effects that had.

For that to happen, all 6 cores would have to fully melt down (only three are in trouble currently), all 6 containments would have to fail (one has probably failed, but two others would probably not survive if their cores melted down fully), and all 6 spent fuel pool (plus a common pool?) would have to dry out and burn completely (this may have started in unit 4, and the temperatures are climbing in at least some of the others). Even then, some percentage of the radioactivity will probably remain trapped in the building. So an absolute worst case scenario is pretty unlikely, but the range of possible outcomes is growing with the number of problems.
posted by Popular Ethics at 1:45 PM on March 15, 2011 [12 favorites]

(..range of "probable" outcomes is growing)
posted by Popular Ethics at 1:49 PM on March 15, 2011

Thank you guys for elaborating on those outcomes.
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:51 PM on March 15, 2011

Interesting that the radiation levels in Tokyo seem to have risen above baseline again (though still many times lower than a commercial flight and still lower than yesterday's peak; remain clam everyone. Yes–I said clam). Do we have any indication as to why? Yesterday it took 3-4 hours (iirc) for the high levels of radiation at Fukushima-1 to show up on that graph. Anything happen 3-4 hours ago that would cause more radiation to be released?
posted by zachlipton at 1:52 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

4:51am

"Tokyo Electric Power Company are considering the removal of panels from the No.5 and No.6 reactors at its damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant to prevent any hydrogen build-up, says the IAEA.

It was a build-up of hydrogen at the plant's 1-3 units that had led to previous explosions at the complex, said the agency - the UN's nuclear watchdog, which added:

Units 5 and 6 were shut down at the time of the earthquake but both reactors are currently loaded with fuel.

When the nuclear fuel rods become exposed and superheated, the water poured onto them - to cool them - can turn to steam before it comes into contact with the rods - this produces hydrogen, raising pressure in the reactor core."

What panels are they talking about?
posted by futz at 1:53 PM on March 15, 2011

> Oh gee what's the rush?

The UN can only do this if invited by the host country, and then they have to find the people to send if there aren't any already on call. I don't know who dragged their feet in this instance, but if Japan was slow to react, it's not the UN's fault for only sending people now.
posted by ardgedee at 1:53 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think they're talking about the roof panels - the upper part of the building that was blown off in units 1 and 2.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 1:56 PM on March 15, 2011

Reuters says two workers missing at the plant.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:57 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

@futz: these are the panels surrounding the steel structure on the top of the reactor building... Basically sheets of corrugated steel intended to keep the rain out. They are designed to blow out in case of over-pressure. However they kept in the oxygen-hydrogen mixture which caused the explosions at 1 and 3.
posted by Morbuto at 1:57 PM on March 15, 2011

Ahhh, that's what I thought. Wasn't sure though. Thanks!
posted by futz at 1:58 PM on March 15, 2011

Pruitt: they were blown off units 1 & 3.
posted by rainy at 1:59 PM on March 15, 2011

Damn.

AJ:

5:45am

Two workers are missing at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant after yesterday's explosion, says Japan's nuclear safety agency.

The employees have not yet been identified, but it's understood they were in the turbine area of the No.4 reactor when a fire broke out.

An agency official also told reporters there is now a crack in the roof of the reactor building, where workers are desperately trying to prevent the radioactive cores of the plant's reactors overheating - which would lead to the release of dangerous radioactive material into the atmosphere.
posted by futz at 2:02 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Does the situation in 5 and 6 imply that the hydrogen buildup in reactors 1 and 3 could have actually been coming from the spent fuel pools, then? My impression is that everyone was assuming that the hydrogen buildup had to have come from the venting of the containment vessels, but it sounds like there are now similar situations developing in 5 and 6, and they were in cold shutdown at the time of the quake.
posted by dialetheia at 2:02 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

re: my previous post. Roof=panels?
posted by futz at 2:03 PM on March 15, 2011

NISA says that the water in the spent fuel pool at reactor four is "almost certainly boiling."

This map has been showing a steady uptick in radiation levels over the last hour -- one monitored site went from 1001 nGy/hr to 1572 nGy/hr between 5:20 and 5:50. This is still very low -- 1000 nGy/hr = 1 microSv/hr -- but not good news.
posted by Jeanne at 2:07 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

We just shouldn't keep lying and saying we can predict the future certainly when we can't.

No, but we don't have to "predict the future" in some sooth-sayer fashion to assess likely outcomes, just as you didn't have to when you said this wouldn't affect America.

The answer to some panicking and others whitewashing is not "sit on your thumbs and wait quietly until a result emerges in the fullness of time", and choosing not to do that is not a cognitive failure.
posted by bonaldi at 2:09 PM on March 15, 2011

dougiedd, NPR is reporting NO available seats on flights for 5 days. They say there is one that is currently being sold by the holder and the price is $2000.00. Don't know how accurate this is though.
posted by futz at 2:12 PM on March 15, 2011

how could the workers be missing, as opposed to deceased? Is part of the plant in smoking ruins and they could be in there or what?
posted by angrycat at 2:13 PM on March 15, 2011

(Can I just state for the record that the last science class I took was in high school, unless you count library science? I'm just a person with enough time to sit on the news feeds and enough Japanese to read them.)
posted by Jeanne at 2:15 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

@zachlipton: The time between release at Fukushima and measurement at Tokyo would obviously depend on the weather conditions. TEPCO have recently released new figures on radiation measurements: http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110315l.pdf (Google Translate).

It looks like there were two significant releases of radiation today, similar to the levels seen last night after the fire at reactor 4.
Something weird about the data though... All the values are stated in μSv / h, including the measurements taken near the reactors, even though those were stated to be in mSv / h (1000 * as much) during the press conference. So a unit error crept in somewhere. Likely all the values for reactor 4 should be in mSv / h.

I don't like the very steep gradient in the values around the likely releases, indicative of a pressurised release of radioactive material (I also don't like that TEPCO have gone silent all day...).
posted by Morbuto at 2:16 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

how could the workers be missing, as opposed to deceased? Is part of the plant in smoking ruins and they could be in there or what?

Not exactly. However, part of the plant is radioactive to the point that it would be dumb to go looking for them.

That's why they can't go deal with the spent fuel pool in number 4. The radiation level on the way in is too high. Right now, they are deciding to wait and see rather than expose workers to health consequences.
posted by Chuckles at 2:17 PM on March 15, 2011

"I'm just a person with enough time to sit on the news feeds and enough Japanese to read them."

Thank you for doing it and being scrupulous about attributing all this info you're posting. It's very valuable.
posted by LobsterMitten at 2:20 PM on March 15, 2011 [9 favorites]

@Jeanne: Is anyone on the Japanese feeds talking about the latest radiation figures released by TEPCO yet? They are updated up to 6h ago, but perhaps they were only just released?
posted by Morbuto at 2:26 PM on March 15, 2011

I think TEPCO messed up in putting up the PDFs -- They put them up a couple of hours ago but I kept getting 404s until just now.
posted by Jeanne at 2:29 PM on March 15, 2011

Two more reactors unstable at Japan nuke plant -- "Units 5, 6 eyed after gas blasts hit others; 2 workers missing in spent fuel fire."
posted by ericb at 2:35 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

So why exactly are the fuel rods kept randomly in a pool by the roof and not inside the big concrete containment that's designed to, well, contain radiation? Is this the case at other reactors? Apparently, because the Guardian tells us that the National Academies Of Sciences report warned about this danger and recommended that spent fuel be stored in dry casks a safe distance away from reactors. This apparently made the cover of Time Magazine (about US whistleblower George Galatis), but didn't lead to changes in reactor design.

Also, would we even be aware of the issues at reactors 5 and 6 if it weren't for the Japanese reporter who asked about them at the press conference with Edano-san yesterday? It wasn't as though anyone was making any effort to mention them before. Edano was obviously aware of the problem because he answered the question, but he didn't bring it up when he reviewed the situation at reactors 1-4. Even the IAEA is sick of the lack of communication here.
posted by zachlipton at 2:44 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

A Layman's Guide to Radiation and Human Health
posted by cdalight at 2:48 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

ABC News: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest

"Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing -- the Mark 1 -- was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident.

Questions persisted for decades about the ability of the Mark 1 to handle the immense pressures that would result if the reactor lost cooling power, and today that design is being put to the ultimate test in Japan. Five of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has been wracked since Friday's earthquake with explosions and radiation leaks, are Mark 1s.

'The problems we identified in 1975 were that, in doing the design of the containment, they did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant,' Bridenbaugh told ABC News in an interview. 'The impact loads the containment would receive by this very rapid release of energy could tear the containment apart and create an uncontrolled release.'" | more ...

posted by ericb at 2:48 PM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

A plausible reason for not using a helicopter to dump water on the roof of the number 4 reactor is the risk of causing collapse of the ceiling over the spent fuel pool, risking damage to the spent fuel assemblies which could create additional risks. (just extrapolating from the published accident management manuals, so please take with the necessary grain of salt).
posted by Morbuto at 2:49 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

From the BBC:

"2126: Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) has just announced it is abandoning the plan to use helicopters to drop water as it would be too impractical, AP reports. It said other options were being considered, including using fire engines. Our correspondent said there had been concerns over the proposal, not least because of the possible health impact for the helicopter pilots."
posted by dialetheia at 2:51 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I was wondering about that, Morbuto -- what good would it do to dump water on the roof? They think that in itself will cool down everything?
posted by angrycat at 2:51 PM on March 15, 2011

zachlipton: So why exactly are the fuel rods kept randomly in a pool by the roof and not inside the big concrete containment that's designed to, well, contain radiation? Is this the case at other reactors?

Spent fuel is kept outside of containment at almost every reactor I know of. It has not generally been seen as as big a threat as the core because it would take days of inaction after a cooling failure or a small leak for trouble to arise. As you've pointed out though, many people have questioned that stance, especially since 9/11.
posted by Popular Ethics at 2:52 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Reactors At Heart Of Japanese Nuclear Crisis Raised Concerns As Early As 1972, Memos Show

In the early 1970s, just as a number of reactors were about to be licensed, Stephen Hanauer, a senior member of the Atomic Energy Commission staff, suggested banning "pressure suppression" methods to contain radiation in the event of a meltdown -- methods built into General Electric's Mark I and Mark II containment designs as well as Westinghouse's ice condenser design. The advice was considered and disregarded.

"Steve's idea to ban pressure suppression containment schemes is an attractive one in some ways," Joseph Hendrie, then a deputy director with the AEC, wrote in a Sept. 25, 1972, memo [PDF]. Hendrie acknowledged that alternative, "dry" containments -- featuring the towers or domes commonly associated with nuclear plants -- had the "notable advantage of brute simplicity in dealing with a primary blowdown, and are thereby free of the perils of bypass leakage."

But regulators ultimately decided that the technology developed by General Electric and Westinghouse was "firmly embedded in the conventional wisdom." Banning it, Hendrie wrote, "would generally create more turmoil than I can stand." His memo was obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists through a Freedom of Information Act request. | more ...

posted by ericb at 2:53 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

"The impact loads the containment would receive by this very rapid release of energy could tear the containment apart and create an uncontrolled release."

Well, they must feel like idiots now, because we lost coolant to multiple units days ago and this hasn't happened.

If they, or anyone, was wondering what the worst case would be if this design lost coolant....... well, that's already happened. We're well past the loss of coolant stage and well into completely unknown territory.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:56 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

BBC:
#
2152: AFP is reporting a new fire at the number four reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

#
2153: Flames are rising from the reactor, AP reports.
posted by futz at 2:56 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

@angrycat: the problem is that the water covering the spent fuel rods is evaporating because of the high temperatures in the pool following loss of the cooling systems (un-sourced reports claim that the pool is boiling).
Re-filling the pool to stop the fuel rods to be uncovered is critical. If they can't manage by any other means they may have to resort to the helicopter option.
posted by Morbuto at 2:57 PM on March 15, 2011

ericb: Thanks for those articles. As FTOLA linked upthread the early concerns over the efficacy of the Mark-1 containment design was at least partially heeded, and upgrades were made to US plants in the 80s.
posted by Popular Ethics at 2:57 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

more BBC:

#
2154: More on those two workers reported to be missing from Fukushima. A national nuclear safety agency spokesman, Masami Nishimura, said they went missing on Friday, the day the quake and tsunami struck, not after Tuesday's explosion, AFP reports.
posted by futz at 2:58 PM on March 15, 2011

Well, they must feel like idiots now, because we lost coolant to multiple units days ago and this hasn't happened.

What? The loss of coolant has been the major cause of the problems, and if their advice had been followed we wouldn't be having this discussion, as far as I can tell. I so I don't really understand how that makes them 'idiots'. The problems they identified were real and we still don't know what is going to happen.
posted by delmoi at 2:59 PM on March 15, 2011

Also, as far as I can tell there is still some water left in the reactor core, right? Otherwise the rods would have melted down.
posted by delmoi at 3:01 PM on March 15, 2011

delmoi: I think that was said with some level of sarcasm..
posted by rainy at 3:01 PM on March 15, 2011

What a lovely way to start the morning for our Japanese friends :(
posted by zachlipton at 3:03 PM on March 15, 2011

Tepco says efforts are underway to tackle the (new) fire inside the building which houses the number four reactor, Reuters reports.
posted by futz at 3:04 PM on March 15, 2011

jib t.v.

Live coverage english translation link

Right now they're discussing radiation exposure but just prior were talking about current fire at #4
posted by cdalight at 3:08 PM on March 15, 2011

Live from the Fukushima prefecture disaster HQ on NHK World: At 5:45am, flames observer at #4 building. Seen on the 4th floor in the same area as yesterday's fire, no details yet. Trying to gather information on a 24/hour basis. 60km away as of 7pm, 23.88microsivert/h (500 times normal level), no immediate harm to human health. As a precaution, don't leave your homes if it is not necessary (!)

Anyone know what 60km looks like on a map?
posted by zachlipton at 3:10 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Spent fuel is kept outside of containment at almost every reactor I know of. It has not generally been seen as as big a threat as the core because it would take days of inaction after a cooling failure or a small leak for trouble to arise. As you've pointed out though, many people have questioned that stance, especially since 9/11.

It is kept in the reactor building for a while, to wait while the fast radioactive decay elements settle down (aka "to cool down 'cause it is way too hot"). It can't be put into dry containment for months/years because it is too "hot". The question is, when do you decide to move it. For the first few weeks after removal, leaving it right there in the roof makes a lot of sense. At some point you can move it to common storage pools. I wonder where they kept spent fuel at Chernobyl....
posted by Chuckles at 3:10 PM on March 15, 2011

zachlipton: try here.
posted by palbo at 3:15 PM on March 15, 2011

Radius Around Point Google Map tool.

Fukushima Daiichi's coordinates are 37.421389, 141.0325... so, as such for 60km.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 3:16 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

*exchanges high-fives with palbo*
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 3:17 PM on March 15, 2011

NHK World has a free iPhone app, FYI.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:18 PM on March 15, 2011

The BBC's Matt Frei in Tokyo says spent fuel rods in reactors five and six are also now believed to be heating up.
posted by futz at 3:18 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

@Chuckles: Spent Fuel Storage Facility at Tchernobyl (best I could find though it may be post-accident).
posted by Morbuto at 3:19 PM on March 15, 2011

The Wall Street Journal's Lam Thuy Vo tweets: "Came to Tokyo via bus ride with people from #Sendai. Flights to Tokyo/Osaka booked until April, 100 standby tix sold, and now
posted by futz at 3:19 PM on March 15, 2011

Norm Rubin of Energy Probe was just on CBC. He reminded the audience of this incident where our esteemed leader Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the decision to override the nuclear safety commission and change regulations to allow the restart of the Chalk River NRU reactor. What a wise, wise man Mr. Harper is, of course there wouldn't be an earthquake.
posted by Chuckles at 3:21 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Le Monde liveblog:

23:00 CET: CNN is reporting that the fire broke out in the northeastern part of reactor no. 4, but we're not able to tell you what it is that's burning.

23:02 CET: According to the news agency Kyodo, the fire broke out at 5:45, or 21:45 French time.

23:04 CET: According to CBS news, which is citing the Japanese government, flames are rising from the Daiichi plant.

23:15 CET: Agence France-Presse is reporting that an employee of the power company has confirmed that smoke was coming from reactor 4's external building, according to a Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) spokesman.

23:19 CET: The television station Asahi is reporting that a helicopter is to be sent to try to extinguish the fire.
posted by neal at 3:23 PM on March 15, 2011

Chuckles: It is kept in the reactor building for a while

Yeah, but the reactor building in a BWR is only deemed "secondary" containment. We've seen how strong it is. In PWRs, CANDUs, Gas Cooled reactors, spent fuel is kept in pools housed in thin-walled buildings until they're cool enough to be moved to dry storage.

(At RBMKs, ie chernobyl, nothing is within containment)
posted by Popular Ethics at 3:23 PM on March 15, 2011

^ Um, ouch.

Anyone who read that "Why I am not afraid" thing a couple days ago should check out the link norm posted.

Also I wish I could modify my earlier comment, since it looks like that site isn't linked to MIT at all.
posted by torticat at 3:23 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Which link are you talking about, torticat?
posted by brightghost at 3:29 PM on March 15, 2011

Nevermind. Missed your link.
posted by brightghost at 3:30 PM on March 15, 2011

I had downloaded that, Morbuto, but it didn't look very informative. On second look, I can see that they were building a common storage pool there as early as 1983, but that it didn't come online until August 1986, soon after the disaster.

I'm really curious if there was storage inside Reactor 4 at the time. Did it survive intact, what did they do with it...
posted by Chuckles at 3:30 PM on March 15, 2011

@norm, torticat:

Yeah, it's a little disturbing... When I initially read that article it was very reassuring and I didn't bother reading further into the literature until things started to go wrong in more severe ways (or rather, were reported to have gone wrong). Reading the actual literature on accident management in the context of the current state of the reactors does not make for such comfortable reading...
I was particularly displeased to find that Fukushima doesn't have a core catcher. Which was not difficult to work out given that the plant is based on very well-documented American designs.
posted by Morbuto at 3:31 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

7:05am

Al Jazeera's Steve Chao, reporting from Akita, tells us:

Yesterday, we heard from Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who we're told believed Tepco was hiding information from state officials, and there's a concern among people that they're not being told the full truth about what's going on.

It is of critical concern.

There's concern here as well that the nuclear fallout may reach here, on the other side of Japan. Everyone is watching wind directions. At the moment, it is blowing out to the east, to the sea - but if it blows south, Tokyo is just 250km away.
posted by futz at 3:31 PM on March 15, 2011

15:32 PDT

I'm reading on Twitter that increased radiation levels have rendered the No. 4 reactor building inaccessible to firefighters.
posted by spitefulcrow at 3:33 PM on March 15, 2011

I'm trying to wrap my head around The Strange Case of Joseph Oehmen. His post Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors gathered a lot of attention & credibility both here & elsewhere. Now that credibility is being called into question & I'm not sure what to make of it. I see that norm posted it a little while ago but I don't think anybody really noticed, so I'm calling attention to it so people can look at it & figure out if there's anything to it or not.
posted by scalefree at 3:33 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

I wonder where they kept spent fuel at Chernobyl....

Never mind Chernobyl, if you live in Western Europe and want to scare yourself shitless, have a look at Sellafield's facilities.
posted by rodgerd at 3:37 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'm taking the dog out for a walk.

I wish there was a way to convey my thoughts to the people on site fighting this thing, especially the guys trying to keep the cooling up via hoses and what not.
posted by mwhybark at 3:41 PM on March 15, 2011

@scalefree: fundamental mistakes like the claim that a core catcher is present make it pretty obvious that "Joseph Oehmen" has not studied Mark 1 containment, GE-designed BWRs. His conclusions appear to be based on the much more comprehensive safety systems in place in much more modern reactors.
posted by Morbuto at 3:42 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Long story short: at this point, it appears that Joseph Oehmen is a fabricator who is inflating his connection with MIT. I've been trying to find confirmation on what he said about the "core catcher" for two days and have got nothing.

Rather than try and evaluate him, I'd suggest simply ignoring any information on his site and discounting anything that he is sole source of.

Here's his publication list

If he's a fraud, somebody will take him down hard. If not, then economists (which is what this guy is, not an engineer), can start building nukes and engineers will run the economy.
posted by warbaby at 3:44 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Yes, I read the debunking of Oehmen's impartiality when norm posted it originally. I agree it raises questions. I had also read the "Revised" version of the Oehmen letter when it appeared on the MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering student blog.

The blog linked in norm's post raises questions about the authenticity of the MIT NSE blog, but I'm not sure those questions are very persuasive - the blog is linked from the front page of the actual MIT NSE website, so it's not a fly-by-night thing that is unaffiliated with MIT. It sounds like the content of the blog is being produced/reviewed by actual nuclear science and engineering students at MIT. Which, you know, is better credentials than we have here for the most part. It also sounds like they revised Oehmen's letter, changing some things (eg he originally said the reactor has a core catcher, but I believe that was removed in the revised version) - it would be nice if they had a version saying what they had changed. But I think that the oehmen thing is more or less as originally advertised: a rough look from someone who has some knowledge of the area, although it's not his area of specialty, explaining what the rough containment apparatus is and why keeping cooling is the main priority, to avoid people automatically thinking (several days ago) that meltdown was happening immediately.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:46 PM on March 15, 2011

We in this thread found the core catcher thing was false very early, I think Oehmen was relying on general knowledge about more recent reactors and this design happens not to have a core catcher. (I don't know how qualified Oehmen is)
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:47 PM on March 15, 2011

I missed the bit about a lack of core catcher. OK, I think I have my answer. Thanks.
posted by scalefree at 3:52 PM on March 15, 2011

Salon is taking a piece out of him now.
posted by warbaby at 3:54 PM on March 15, 2011

In the earthquake, with a swimming pool full of water on top of the building, sloshing one way while the ground moved the other way, I wonder whether the location of the pools directly contributed to some of the early connection or structure failures.
posted by zippy at 3:56 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

With all the damage done so far by hydrogen explosions, is it true that newer reactor designs don't use any water-cooled substances that want to oxidize so urgently (especially when raised to nuclear-accident temperatures) that they can decompose their water coolant, strip off the oxygen atoms, and release free H2?

I haven't forgotten the notorious hydrogen bubble at TMI. Though they managed to prevent that one from exploding and breaking its containment building they were certainly sweating it out at the time. No free hydrogen bubbling off and floating around--that's a major design criterion, right?
posted by jfuller at 3:57 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

A map of the Fukushima Daiichi site (in French).
posted by neal at 3:57 PM on March 15, 2011

Does someone have the link to the japanese media chart of radiation exposure effects in mSv? Can't find it in this monster of a thread. Also having trouble locating the conversion data for cpm to mSv that came with the (deleted?) original post of the geiger readings.
posted by brightghost at 4:01 PM on March 15, 2011

The blog linked in norm's post raises questions about the authenticity of the MIT NSE blog, but I'm not sure those questions are very persuasive - the blog is linked from the front page of the actual MIT NSE website, so it's not a fly-by-night thing that is unaffiliated with MIT. It sounds like the content of the blog is being produced/reviewed by actual nuclear science and engineering students at MIT.

FYI, I work as a contractor for MIT and could, very easily, set up multiple Wordpress installations (or whatever) under multiple mit.edu subdomains (and have, for legitimate reasons when requested to by the departments I work for). And anything under web.mit.edu means it is something provided by IT for general use by individuals, departments or organizations otherwise affiliated with MIT to do whatever the heck they want with.

That said, I am not saying anything one way or another about this particular post on this particular blog, just that you should take any assumption that it is "official" MIT endorsed information because it is linked to by an mit.edu subdomain or even sitting on one with a big bucket of salt.
posted by dubitable at 4:01 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

jfuller: With all the damage done so far by hydrogen explosions, is it true that newer reactor designs don't use any water-cooled substances that want to oxidize so urgently (especially when raised to nuclear-accident temperatures) that they can decompose their water coolant, strip off the oxygen atoms, and release free H2?

No, almost all* reactors use zirconium alloys for structural elements inside the core and cladding for the fuel. It is pretty much the only metal which is stable at reactor conditions and adequately transparent to neutrons. Zirconium reacts with steam at high temperatures to form hydrogen. It's a known failure mode.

*a few specialized reactors use more stable cladding like carbides or stainless steel, but that requires more fuel enrichment which brings its own problems.
posted by Popular Ethics at 4:03 PM on March 15, 2011

D'oh. There's conversion info for cpm>mSv right on the mirror page. Still looking for that chart though...
posted by brightghost at 4:05 PM on March 15, 2011

I don't know if this is a typo, but the neutron readings are 10x to 20x the previous peaks in the 11:35 TEPCO Japanese announcement for Fukushima-2. Where previously they were in the 0 - .002µSv/h range, readings for 15 Mar at 1:30am and 1:40am peak at .01 and .02 µSv/h, and subseqent readings are reported as under .01µ Sv/h rather than the previous under .001 µSv/h
posted by zippy at 4:06 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

that's a hell of a typo, if so
posted by angrycat at 4:09 PM on March 15, 2011

This one brightghost? http://twitpic.com/49mm4l
posted by pixie at 4:10 PM on March 15, 2011

(still low numbers, though. Here's the chart, pdf)
posted by zippy at 4:10 PM on March 15, 2011

This crisis certainly has revealed what a snow job te nuclear industry pulled on many of us the last few years. It's like the whole oil industry situation in Deep Water Horizon. All this talk of failsafes and protective systems which it turns out were routinely non-functioning garbage. The only thing holding the world together is duct tape and bullshit. Once you factor in the trillion dollar cleanup tab, solar is looking pretty fucking cheap right now.
posted by humanfont at 4:11 PM on March 15, 2011 [7 favorites]

That said, I am not saying anything one way or another about this particular post on this particular blog, just that you should take any assumption that it is "official" MIT endorsed information because it is linked to by an mit.edu subdomain or even sitting on one with a big bucket of salt.

And actually what is more pernicious is the assumption that just because it is coming out of MIT it is legit.
posted by dubitable at 4:12 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

You know what's even cheaper? Conservation.
posted by anthill at 4:13 PM on March 15, 2011 [8 favorites]

I'm not quite willing to go that far humanfront, but I am shocked and appalled at the spent fuel rod situation. Probably should keep that talk in a different thread until this plays out.
posted by polyhedron at 4:15 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Isn't there another thread in MeTa for this argument????
posted by OHenryPacey at 4:16 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

AP (via the Guardian) is reporting that the fire in reactor #4 is literally the same fire as yesterday--it was never completely extinguished and apparently reignited. In a normal house fire, I know the fire department is very cautious to go through your house and rip apart ceilings and walls and furniture ("overhauling") in order to check for hidden traces of the fire that might cause the building to reignite. I presume the high radiation levels prevented any kind of exhaustive search in this case.

Still not clear how the fire went out in the first place. TEPCO was saying it went out on its own and various media was reporting the US military helped put it out somehow, but no one is saying what methods were used if any.
posted by zachlipton at 4:17 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

AP says the fire is not a new one, they never got the original one out.
posted by warbaby at 4:19 PM on March 15, 2011

That's the one, pixie. Thanks.
posted by brightghost at 4:20 PM on March 15, 2011

BBC:
A spokesman for the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) has said: "At around 0545 today, our employee carrying batteries to the control room discovered smoke billowing from the building of reactor 4 [at Fukushima Daiichi]."

The Japanese government is now saying the fire in reactor 4 is "under control", according to the AFP news agency.
posted by futz at 4:24 PM on March 15, 2011

Does anyone have any info about the contents of spent fuel pools 1, 2 and 3? I believe Kyodo said that pools 5 and 6 were not completely full of rods. Therefore they aren't heating up as fast. Still no info on 1, 2 and 3 though.
posted by Procloeon at 4:24 PM on March 15, 2011

Now I'm seeing tweets that the fire is out but they can't go look at it due to the radiation. Did it just go out on its own? It doesn't sound like anyone did anything to try to stop it. To be precise, NHK World just said that TEPCO is saying that the fire is now "not visible" about a half hour after it was noticed. I have absolutely no clue what this means.
posted by zachlipton at 4:29 PM on March 15, 2011

Why is there igniteable stuff there anyway, in the reactor building? Use aluminum furniture, store machine oil in other buildings, bare concrete and steel everywhere. Just a reasonable precaution.
posted by rainy at 4:34 PM on March 15, 2011

you mean to tell me we dont have the capacity to fly copters remotely?
posted by dougiedd at 4:36 PM on March 15, 2011

Le Monde:

00:31 CET: According to the [news] agency Kyodo, TEPCO says the fuel rods are 70% damaged in reactor 1 and 33% damaged in reactor 2. We don't know whether "damaged" means "melted."
posted by neal at 4:36 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

A few days ago, I was one of the people who thought the press were being alarmist. "Its just a slightly unusual situation at a nuclear facility that has tons of failsafes and carefully designed and planned safety features" I thought. And I'm no fan of nuclear. Now, it turns out all bets are off, and an extremely brave group of people are playing a blindfolded game of 'keep the plates spinning' in a disaster area with no grid power.

When something like a fire truck running out of fuel can have a serious effect on things, its got pretty bad.

I've seen it said elsewhere that the strength of the original quake at the site was not that large. Seems to be the tsunami and then the problem of _exploding_buildings_ that have taken this situation off the map. Suddenly building lots of reactors close to each other and keeping the spent fuel nearby doesn't seem like such a good idea.
posted by memebake at 4:38 PM on March 15, 2011

NHK World just said that water levels have now fallen in the #5 pool and that they are using the generator from #6 to control the water level in #5. So I guess the good news is that at least one generator/pump mechanism is still working...
posted by dialetheia at 4:40 PM on March 15, 2011

Why is there igniteable stuff there anyway, in the reactor building? Use aluminum furniture, store machine oil in other buildings, bare concrete and steel everywhere. Just a reasonable precaution.

The machine oil theory has been mentioned by TEPCO before, but the current guess seems to be that the fuel rods in the storage pool were at least partially exposed and overheated, causing a chemical reaction that produced hydrogen, and that hydrogen then exploded, starting the fire. I'm guessing it wasn't a bunch of random flammable stuff being stored up in the attic, but few things would surprise me now.
posted by zachlipton at 4:40 PM on March 15, 2011

Mainichi published a chart of each reactor's spent fuel rods. Numbers in parentheses represent the pool's capacity.

Reactor 1　２９２　　（９００）

Reactor 2　５８７　（１２４０）

Reactor 3　５１４　（１２２０）

Reactor 4　７８３　（１５９０）

Reactor 5　９４６　（１５９０）

Reactor 6 ８７６　（１７７０）

So I think the worse conditions at reactor 4 may be more a factor of 4's proximity to 1 and 3 than because the pool was less full? But 1, 2, and 3 are not too bad by comparison. Maybe that's a good sign.
posted by Jeanne at 4:42 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

zachlipton: well even if hydrogen exploded it has to ignite something. What can burn for hours? I don't think concrete + steel can burn like that, if at all, unless they're in the center of the sun.
posted by rainy at 4:42 PM on March 15, 2011

The fact that the fire was first reported shortly after a major personnel reduction suggests it was probably preventable. We'll see.
posted by polyhedron at 4:43 PM on March 15, 2011

Reuters is reporting that "TEPCO says it is considering dispersing boric acid over the No.4 plant from a helicopter" - no details, just the headline...
posted by dialetheia at 4:44 PM on March 15, 2011

So at this stage, would it be safe to assume that it's too late to try liquid nitrogen to cool the rods? (Took a cursory look upthread, didn't see this explicitly stated.)
posted by wowbobwow at 4:45 PM on March 15, 2011

Robert Alvarez is cited here for his work on spent fuel pools. His paper is here (PDF). NRC comments here.

So what was burning? Some say spent fuel (but that doesn't seem right) and some say oil, like lubricant. nobody seems to know.
posted by warbaby at 4:45 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Polyhedron, I ~~think~~ speculate wildly that the personnel reduction may have happened because the fire raised the radiation to dangerous levels, and they just didn't report the fire until later.
posted by Jeanne at 4:45 PM on March 15, 2011

Is there any way for them to expose the pool to be accessible from above? Like opening a hatch in the roof? I don't see how helicopter is going to get anything in it.
posted by rainy at 4:46 PM on March 15, 2011

Why would boric acid be used on the spent fuel? Isn't it a nutron inhibitor? Are they worrried that the spent rods have somehow returned to criticality? Is that even possible?
posted by fremen at 4:47 PM on March 15, 2011

I may have missed it in the thread, but here's what appears to be a direct link to the Brookhaven study talked about in the NY Times article:

Severe accidents in spent fuel pools in support of generic safety (pdf). V.L. Sailor, et al, Brookhaven National Laboratory. Issue 82. July, 1987.

Abstract:

This investigation provides an assessment of the likelihood and consequences of a severe accident in a spent fuel pool - the complete draining of the pool. Potential mechanisms and conditions for failure of the spent fuel, and the subsequent release of the fission products, are identified. Two older PWR and BWR spent fuel storage pool designs are considered ...

Conditions which could leas to failure of the spent fuel Zircaloy cladding as a result of cladding rupture or as a result of a self-sustaining oxidation reaction are presented. Propagation of a cladding fire to older stored fuel assemblies is evaluated. Spent fuel pool fission product inventory is estimated and the releases and consequences for various cladding failure scenarions are provided ....

Excerpts:

Calculations ... indicated that, for some storage configurations and decay times, the Zircaloy cladding could reach temperatures at which the exothermic oxidation would become self-sustaining with resultant destruction of the cladding and fission product release...the cladding would catch fire and burn at a high enough temperature to heat neighboring fuel assemblies to the ignition point... Under certain conditions, the entire inventory of stored fuel could become involved. Cladding fires of this type could occur at temperatures well below the melting point of the U02 fuel. The cladding ignition point is about 900°C compared to the fuel melting point of 2880°C.

...

Probabilities of pool failures due to external events (earthquakes, missiles) or heavy load drops were estimated to be in the range of 10~6/year.

...

In the event that normal circulation of the cooling water is disrupted, e.g., due to station blackout, pump failure, pipe rupture, etc., the water temperature of the pool would steadily increase until bulk boiling occurred.... Even in the most pessimistic case ... the water level in the pool would drop only about 6 inches per hour. Thus, there is considerable time available to restore normal cooling or to implement one of several alternative backup options for cooling.

...

Fragility curves specifically for spent fuel pools have never been developed. It is necessary therefore, to rely on fragility assessments for other structures which appear to be of similar construction to spent fuel storage pools.

The dilemma of selecting an appropriate fragility for a BWR plant is aggravated by the fact that the pool structure extends typically from the 60 to the 100 foot elevations above grade with the resultant amplification of the seismic bending stresses relative to the lower elevations of the structure.

posted by zippy at 4:47 PM on March 15, 2011 [11 favorites]

Zippy, thank you so much for your hard work, great links, and insightful commentary in this thread! I really appreciate it.
posted by dialetheia at 4:51 PM on March 15, 2011 [11 favorites]

If he's a fraud, somebody will take him down hard. If not, then economists (which is what this guy is, not an engineer), can start building nukes and engineers will run the economy.

Given the way things have been going lately, I think I'd rather have engineers running the economy instead of economists.

Which, you know, is better credentials than we have here for the most part. It also sounds like they revised Oehmen's letter, changing some things (eg he originally said the reactor has a core catcher, but I believe that was removed in the revised version)

The idea of an 'open letter' that's being updated and revised is kind of weird. In fact, the title of the article doesn't even say "why I'm not worried about Japan's nuclear reactors anymore. It's only the URL.

Here's the last update

The details about what happened at the Unit 2 reactor are still being determined. The post on what is happening at the Unit 2 reactor contains more up-to-date information. Radiation levels have increased, but to what level remains unknown.

So regardless of this guys qualifications, the initial predictions were wrong. Why take it seriously at this point?

We clearly don't know what's going to happen in the future. Maybe they'll get it contained, but I don't know, and I don't think most of us here know enough to say a meltdown is impossible on the one hand or that they don't have everything under control on the other.

FYI, I work as a contractor for MIT and could, very easily, set up multiple Wordpress installations (or whatever) under multiple mit.edu subdomains

it's not even an MIT.edu subdomain. It's mitnse.com, and it was registered like two days ago.

This crisis certainly has revealed what a snow job te nuclear industry pulled on many of us the last few years. It's like the whole oil industry situation in Deep Water Horizon. All this talk of failsafes and protective systems which it turns out were routinely non-functioning garbage. The only thing holding the world together is duct tape and bullshit. Once you factor in the trillion dollar cleanup tab, solar is looking pretty fucking cheap right now.

Solar energy stocks have been way up lately.
posted by delmoi at 4:55 PM on March 15, 2011

Oh crap. "6 inches per hour" to boil off. There's about 30 feet of water above the fuel and (*looks at watch*).... this is getting dicey.
posted by warbaby at 4:57 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

When they were pumping seawater into the reactors to cool them down:

1) Were they just pumping the water into a heat-exchanger (that was physically separated from the reactor core itself) or were they pumping it straight into the core?

2) If it was straight into the core, what was happening to the water after it was pumped in? Was it boiling off? Or coming back out and being kept somewhere?
posted by memebake at 4:58 PM on March 15, 2011

boiling off
posted by warbaby at 4:59 PM on March 15, 2011

memebake: it was turning into steam and then released. It wasn't done continuously - first a batch of water would go in, then steam let out, then the cycle would be repeated.
posted by rainy at 4:59 PM on March 15, 2011

Thank you. The study also looks at crane and loading events that could damage the pool, like accidentally dropping a fuel assembly. I imagine that hydrogen blowing the roof off could lead to lots of events like this (especially if the crane fell into the pool).

I am amazed, as an engineer, that these cooling pools were ever allowed as part of the design, given how many failure modes there are. The study talks about the high uncertainty of assumptions behind the quantification of potential failures.

I would not be surprised if GE is eventually bankrupted by settlements of cases that hinge on the clear flaws in this design
posted by zippy at 5:00 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Also, I think straight into core because they were saying that level of rods exposed above water is such and such.
posted by rainy at 5:00 PM on March 15, 2011

"Spent Fuel Pool Safety Facts

To reiterate before closing, the safety and security of spent fuel pools is ensured by a series of physical structures, operational measures and security barriers that are unprecedented in U.S. civilian infrastructure.

Nuclear power reactor spent fuel pools are robust structures constructed of very thick steel-reinforced concrete walls with stainless steel liners located inside protected areas.

Many of spent fuel pools are designed with the pool and fuel located below grade, many are shielded by other structures, and many have intervening walls that would obstruct an aircraft’s or other object’s impact.

Spent fuel pools contain enormous quantities of water and the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool produces significantly less heat than in an operating reactor. As a result, for most events (i.e., loss of cooling or small leaks) plant operators would have significant amounts of time to correct the problem, or implement fixes needed to restore cooling.

In addition to the water in the spent fuel pool, nuclear power plants possess many other sources of water that are readily available that could be made available as a backup supply to the spent fuel pool."
Taken from the NRC paper: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/reducing-hazards-spent-fuel.html
Gives one great confidence to see...
posted by dougiedd at 5:01 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

thanks rainy, warbaby. That makes a bit more sense now.

And I guess they were assuming the rods were Ok in the core, so that the steam coming off would just have those very-fast-half-life atoms that were getting mentioned, rather than any nastier stuff.
posted by memebake at 5:03 PM on March 15, 2011

Um, BBC again:
"2359: Back to the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant: the Kyodo news agency reports that engineers are spraying boric acid to prevent "recriticality" - presumably, the resumption of a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction - at reactor 4. "

Is that as bad as it sounds?
posted by dialetheia at 5:03 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

The Brookhaven study is for US plants which store fuel for a long time, and also makes assumptions about the freshness of the fuel.

It may be the case, since Japan reprocesses fuel, that the Japanese plants store less fuel on site than the US ones Brookhaven looked at.

However, counterintuitively, it is possible that the reactors that were shut down for inspection prior to the earthquake may be more hazardous, if they were shut down and cores placed into cooling that were fresh. Fresher fuel is more prone to the zircalloy oxidation. Brookhaven's study is that fuel several years spent and cooling is much more resistant to this.
posted by zippy at 5:04 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'll be flying out to join radiological response teams in Japan tomorrow. I'll update as much as time/rules allow.

Mostly time. The teams I'm going to help have been working 20-hr days nonstop.
posted by ctmf at 5:08 PM on March 15, 2011 [89 favorites]

Um, BBC again:
"2359: Back to the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant: the Kyodo news agency reports that engineers are spraying boric acid to prevent "recriticality" - presumably, the resumption of a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction - at reactor 4. "

Yeah that sounds bad. So would that be like a nuclear reactor, except in a swimming pool? Do they have any of those control rods handy in the pools?
posted by memebake at 5:08 PM on March 15, 2011

CNN (yeah, i don't know why i'm even watching it) just showed some black and white footage of MOPP suited workers inside a reactor complex. Does anyone know where this footage came from? Is there actual footage from inside Daiichi? Was it stock footage?
posted by jindc at 5:09 PM on March 15, 2011

This thread is running at about 1 Palin. What, you've never heard of the official metric of internet comments? 1 Palin = 1 comment per minute
posted by BeerFilter at 5:09 PM on March 15, 2011 [9 favorites]

"2359: Back to the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant: the Kyodo news agency reports that engineers are spraying boric acid to prevent "recriticality" - presumably, the resumption of a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction - at reactor 4. " Is that as bad as it sounds?

Criticality combined with another (the same?) fire/explosion would indeed be quite bad and could be quite hard to stop. See criticality accident. Active chain reactions release a lot more radioactive junk. But I'm imagining this is more of a preventative step unless there's some reason to fear the worst. I doubt they could get anywhere near there to spray water if the spent rods had gone critical. They've been dumping boron into the other reactors all along with the seawater for the same reasons.
posted by zachlipton at 5:09 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Good luck, ctmf, and let those guys know how much we appreciate their endurance and effort.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:13 PM on March 15, 2011 [9 favorites]

Dang ctmf! That's fantastic of you and I hope you can do as much good as possible. Stay safe and we'll all be thinking good thoughts for you. If there's anything the Metafilter community can do to help you with anything there or at home while you're gone, I'm sure we'd be happy to try our best. We've already had offers to try to fedex donuts to Japanese mefites. Best of luck!
posted by zachlipton at 5:14 PM on March 15, 2011

I thought the whole purpose of a light water reactor was that it couldn't go critical without the presence of water?
posted by hwyengr at 5:14 PM on March 15, 2011

Partial thought, sorry.

And if there was water present, it would keep everything from burning, right?
posted by hwyengr at 5:15 PM on March 15, 2011

I thought the whole purpose of a light water reactor was that it couldn't go critical without the presence of water?

Maybe not, but from what I understand this particular reactor would certainly melt down. And if melted down all the rods would be in the same pool of molten uranium/plutonium plus whatever else was in there.
posted by delmoi at 5:16 PM on March 15, 2011

There's a negative relationship between moderator temperature and reactivity of the reactor. If you put cold water in there, the moderator gets more dense, slowing down more... [skipping ahead] and reactor power goes up. A reactor with all rods inserted should be able to be brought critical by any temperature condition, but a damaged one? Who knows.

Critical means the amount of neutrons being produced by fission are enough to sustain the reaction at a constant power level. It doesn't mean the rx is about to blow up.

Still, a critical reactor with no operator control or margin to insert rods any more to reduce power is no good for the core damage/rad level issue.
posted by ctmf at 5:18 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

I was skimming the papers on the storage pools, and it seemed that a zirconium fire would be several hundred degrees cooler than the melting temperature of uranium.
posted by hwyengr at 5:19 PM on March 15, 2011

Hyengr: Also, when talking about reactor 4, I think we're really talking about the spent fuel pool rather than the core itself. (unless I've got muddled up)
posted by memebake at 5:19 PM on March 15, 2011

Be safe, ctmf. Many thanks to you and your team.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:20 PM on March 15, 2011

Right, but if they're dumping boric acid in the storage pool on 4, they've got to be concerned about something.
posted by hwyengr at 5:20 PM on March 15, 2011

A reactor with all rods inserted should not be able to be brought critical by any temperature condition
posted by ctmf at 5:22 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing -- the Mark 1 -- was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:23 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

Right, but if they're dumping boric acid in the storage pool on 4, they've got to be concerned about something.

Wikipedia's chart on the reactors' status implies that the spent fuel pool's water level is very low. The rods could theoretically experience more damage, melt, and hit the bottom of the pool, which could create criticality.

Dumping boric acid is like adding liquid control rods; it should help.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:23 PM on March 15, 2011

Thanks for the info all! This is just the first I've heard that they are concerned about criticality in the spent fuel, in a tank without any containment features whatsoever (as I understand it). The Wikipedia article zippy linked has this (sort of?) reassuring line:

In the history of atomic power development, fewer than a dozen criticality accidents have occurred in collections of fissile materials outside nuclear reactors, but most of these have resulted in death, by radiation exposure, of the nearest person(s) to the event. However, none have resulted in explosions.
posted by dialetheia at 5:23 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Wait, they're talking about dumping boric acid into the storage pool?

Crazyness.

_{Spent Fuel Pool Safety Facts

To reiterate before closing, the safety and security of spent fuel pools is ensured by a series of physical structures, operational measures and security barriers that are unprecedented in U.S. civilian infrastructure.

Nuclear power reactor spent fuel pools are robust structures constructed of very thick steel-reinforced concrete walls with stainless steel liners located inside protected areas.

Many of spent fuel pools are designed with the pool and fuel located below grade, many are shielded by other structures, and many have intervening walls that would obstruct an aircraft’s or other object’s impact.

Spent fuel pools contain enormous quantities of water and the spent fuel in the spent fuel pool produces significantly less heat than in an operating reactor. As a result, for most events (i.e., loss of cooling or small leaks) plant operators would have significant amounts of time to correct the problem, or implement fixes needed to restore cooling.

In addition to the water in the spent fuel pool, nuclear power plants possess many other sources of water that are readily available that could be made available as a backup supply to the spent fuel pool."

Taken from the NRC paper: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/reducing-hazards-spent-fuel.html

Gives one great confidence to see...}

Which I guess doesn't do anything to help in the case the pool boils off because people put live fuel in it while examining the core, then got hit by a combination earthquake + tsunami causing a station blackout and radiation leak that makes it impossible to work in the plant...
posted by delmoi at 5:23 PM on March 15, 2011

Ctmf, but what about the helicopter drop of boron into the storage pool? Are they expecting the rods in the pool to go critical? I didn't think that was possible.
posted by hwyengr at 5:23 PM on March 15, 2011

What sort of protection would a storage pool have to prevent or contain a meltdown? I'm guessing not much? Hopefully, dumping the boric acid in there is just a precaution.
posted by memebake at 5:24 PM on March 15, 2011

ctmf: makes sense (and thanks). What we're wondering about is the spent fuel pool. Do you know whether melting fuel rods up there could reach criticality and whether water would be required to sustain the chain reaction?
posted by zachlipton at 5:24 PM on March 15, 2011

ctmf: "I'll be flying out to join radiological response teams in Japan tomorrow. I'll update as much as time/rules allow.

Mostly time. The teams I'm going to help have been working 20-hr days nonstop"

Don't forget to bring some donuts.

Good luck and when you get a chance, let folks know we care. About their effort, about all of it.
posted by mwhybark at 5:24 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

Yeah good luck ctmf
posted by memebake at 5:25 PM on March 15, 2011

If the fuel rods melt, any control rods present will be destroyed too. Good to get a moderator in the pool just in case.
posted by polyhedron at 5:27 PM on March 15, 2011

I found a photo online which is supposedly of what a spent fuel storage pool looks like: like a really big swimming pool that glows a lovely blue underwater (from Cherenkov radiation). The photo was supposedly taken at a French plant.
posted by Asparagirl at 5:31 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Although I'm not sure if anything done from a helicopter can really be called a precaution. Something about the image of throwing things out of hovering helicopters seems a little desperate. Although the BBC didn't explicitly mention a helicopter.
posted by memebake at 5:32 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

In the history of atomic power development, fewer than a dozen criticality accidents have occurred in collections of fissile materials outside nuclear reactors, but most of these have resulted in death, by radiation exposure, of the nearest person(s) to the event.

Historical and cinematic sidenote: Louis Slotin is one of the more historically notable victims of a criticality accident, post-WWII, at Los Alamos. (John Cusack plays a fictionalized version of Slotin in Fat Man and Little Boy.)

Japan's previous worst-ever nuclear incident was also a criticality accident outside of a nuclear power plant, at a reprocessing facility:the Tokaimura accident, where three workers died after improperly mixing up a batch of enriched uranium fuel. (One of the three workers caught 10 to 20 thousand milisieverts of radiation.) They used boron to moderate that reaction as well:

The reaction was stopped when cooling water surrounding the precipitation tank was drained away, since this water provided a neutron reflector. Boric acid solution (neutron absorber) was finally added to the tank to ensure that the contents remained subcritical.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:33 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

You can't use up 100% of the fuel in a reactor fuel assembly before it gets too unreactive to work properly in the presence of various neutron absorbing materials. So there is some reactivity left in those "spent" cells.

My guess is, just dump boron on everything. Why not? Don't want to get back doored by another surprise later.

The core itself is designed to, as a last resort melt into a subcritical geometry. I doubt if the refueling pond was. A subcritical mess of fuel could conceivably melt into one critical-mass lump if all that water in the pond boiled off or evaporated.

Now I'm just slightly-educated SWAGging, though.
posted by ctmf at 5:34 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

A comment above, sourced from Reuters, indicated they would use helicopters.
posted by hwyengr at 5:36 PM on March 15, 2011

Oh.

NHK World just said that the Unit 4 reactor spent fuel pool is not carrying spent fuel. It's carrying the fuel that they took out for the maintenance.

That, er... rather changes the profile.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:37 PM on March 15, 2011 [14 favorites]

NHK World just said that the Unit 4 reactor spent fuel pool is not carrying spent fuel. It's carrying the fuel that they took out for the maintenance.

Oh, dear.
posted by KathrynT at 5:40 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

(And yes, I am pretty definite that I heard "the pool normally carries only spent fuel, but was holding the fuel taken out for maintenance;" I am listening to the English feed while I work. Someone please tell me I'm wrong, though, if I am wrong.)
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:41 PM on March 15, 2011

NHK World just said that the Unit 4 reactor spent fuel pool is not carrying spent fuel. It's carrying the fuel that they took out for the maintenance.

That, er... rather changes the profile.

Right. so, a nuclear reactor, but in a swimming pool, and without any of the failsafes. And its too radioactive for them to get close to the building. Yeah, I'd put some boron on that.
posted by memebake at 5:41 PM on March 15, 2011 [10 favorites]

Good luck, ctmf. I hope you come back safe.

Why is there igniteable stuff there anyway, in the reactor building? Use aluminum furniture

Enough heat will burn aluminium.
posted by rodgerd at 5:41 PM on March 15, 2011

Reporter, too, not TEPCO/ NISA directly, so... please someone hurry up and tell me I heard that wrong.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:41 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

NHK World just said that the Unit 4 reactor spent fuel pool is not carrying spent fuel. It's carrying the fuel that they took out for the maintenance.

Yeah it was also posted in this thread a while ago. :P
posted by delmoi at 5:42 PM on March 15, 2011

Enough heat will burn aluminium.

Steel too.
posted by delmoi at 5:43 PM on March 15, 2011

K, that'll do. "Thanks," delmoi.

derision quotes about gratitude, not about you
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:43 PM on March 15, 2011

May The Force be with you ctmf.
posted by nickyskye at 5:45 PM on March 15, 2011

Recriticality: IMO easily possible if the superstructure collapse shattered the cores. IMO Also likely that the quake itself shook the pool hard enough to jostle and break the rods.

I'll be surprised if, taken as a gravel-crumbled pile of spent fuel sloshed all to one heaped side on the bottom of the pond, the mess isn't thick enough to nearly go critical.

The news that the pools have been damaged is much more worrying than the issue of the breeched containment vessel, IMO. The latter is a localized radiation problem. The former changes this into a dispersed radiological disaster.

Repeated references to the prevailing winds has me worried that Tokyo is endangered, instead of the ocean. The latter wasn't likely to have a huge impact on life, let alone human life. Adding a maga-city to the toll changes the scale by orders of magnitude.

Mind, there's no indication quite yet that spent fuel is going to enter the non-local (off-site) environment in a major way.

It seems to me that with best outcomes, the exclusion zone will be minimal. Perhaps preserve the area a kilometer or four out from the plant, as a memorial for the disaster as much as a safety zone.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:46 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Some general information for those of us who, a week ago, had never heard the word sievert: A brief explanation of the relationship between common and SI measures of radioactivity, radiation doses, and exposure.

(I haven't made it through the whole thread, so apologies if something like this has been posted already.)
posted by evidenceofabsence at 5:47 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

AFAIK IANANS: carrying the fuel that they took out for the maintenance — presumably encased in their graphite chambers? Wouldn't they be too hot for common pool storage?

Graphite is fragile, of course. So it's going to be a pool of graphite chunks and…?

I don't understand why radiation protected disaster cameras are not mandated. Flying blind is bullshit.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:51 PM on March 15, 2011

Well that explains why pool 4 heated up faster than the others even though it has fewer rods.
posted by Procloeon at 5:53 PM on March 15, 2011

My mind is kind of boggled that you could have multiple levels of fail safe protection designed into a reactor, but the storage pool is just a very big pool of water. And the rods are routinely transferred from the reactor to the storage pool when its maintenance time.
posted by memebake at 5:54 PM on March 15, 2011

Translator coworker's poking around online and says everything he's seeing in Japanese print sources indicates spent fuel only in the Unit 4 pool, which means the reporter might've misspoken. I really want to see something either in print or from TEPCO/ NISA before we run too far with that.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:54 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

AFAIK IANANS: carrying the fuel that they took out for the maintenance — presumably encased in their graphite chambers? Wouldn't they be too hot for common pool storage?

Agreed. If possible, some kind of UAV on a model airplane or helicopter scale might help immensely here.
posted by ZeusHumms at 5:55 PM on March 15, 2011

Whoa, strike that last comment. I agree with this:

I don't understand why radiation protected disaster cameras are not mandated. Flying blind is bullshit.

Remote cameras of any kind on throwaway robots or UAV's would seem to help immensely here.
posted by ZeusHumms at 5:56 PM on March 15, 2011

My mind is kind of boggled that you could have multiple levels of fail safe protection designed into a reactor, but the storage pool is just a very big pool of water.

Again, have a look at Sellafield. 150 kilos of plutonium in a slush pond open to the air, covered in algae, birds landing and taking off, and cracked concrete walls.
posted by rodgerd at 6:00 PM on March 15, 2011

I've seen various reports that mention that measurements are unavailable because the gauges and/or telemetry systems aren't functioning, presumably because they were damaged in an explosion or fire (or were flooded). I imagine that any cameras and similar equipment would have been knocked out in the same explosion that tore a giant hole in the roof and caused cranes to collapse.
posted by zachlipton at 6:00 PM on March 15, 2011

floam: I think any boxes of cool gadgets that they had got trashed by the tsunami. The fire in reactor 4 was 'discovered by an employee carrying batteries to the control room'. Sounds like they're using pretty low tech - fire trucks, seawater, etc.

Probably. NHK has been reporting that TEPCO doesn't have any temperature measurements in the fuel pool since Monday night (Japan time) because the sensors aren't reporting data.
posted by zachlipton at 6:04 PM on March 15, 2011

rodgerd: yikes, Sellafield. I remember reading about the radioactive seagulls (radioactive enough to be classified as nuclear waste)
posted by memebake at 6:04 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

"Adding a maga-city to the toll changes the scale by orders of magnitude."

I read the following comment on The Guardian live blog today:

____

At around 5 PM Japan time today the UK government’s Chief Scientific officer John Beddington spoke to the British Embassy in Tokyo, and to others listening in on the teleconference, and gave us some information about worst case scenarios at the Fukushima plant. I made the following notes on what was said and found it very reassuring:

1) Worst case scenario (reactor explodes) problems would only affect a 30 km radius around the plant.

2) No health problems expected outside this 30 km area. Today's reports of increased radiation in Tokyo are trivial. The increase in radiation they are reporting is not significant. It would need to be 100s of times that level to cause any problems.

3) An allowable dose would be 100 times the background radiation.
They can monitor radiation levels in the area from outside Japan, so there is no cover up going on. Conspiracy theorists stand down.

4) In Chernobyl the top blew off the reactor and then the core caught fire and burnt. This convection pushed all radioactive material higher and higher into the air where it reached 30,000 feet and so the spread was much larger. Here, a build up of pressure as the radioactive material interacts with the containment floor would cause an explosion that would only reach as high as around 500 meters. This would contain any dangerous material within the 20 to 30 km exclusion zone.

5) If all attempts at cooling the reactors fail, a worst case scenario, then there would be an explosion, but this blast would only throw radioactive material up to 500 meters, and the 30 km containment zone stands.

6) Acceptable levels of radiation are based on the most susceptible members of society (children and pregnant mothers). So right now, the levels outside the 30 km zone are fine for all members of society.

7) No matter how strong the wind, the radioactive material released after an explosion of the core wouldn't make it to Tokyo.

These are just the main points I picked up, a transcript/podcast will apparently be uploaded to the British Embassy's Japan Web site. It was reassuring to hear a calm but informed perspective.

____

This morning I was reassured by reading this. But now with hints that there is exposed live fuel in 'spent fuel' pools with the potential to ignite? I bloody hope that reporter misspoke.

BBC 24 is not reporting that.
posted by panaceanot at 6:06 PM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

NHK World says there is live fuel in #4 that was put there during maintenance.
Showing something billowing from #4 reactor.
posted by tomcosgrave at 6:07 PM on March 15, 2011

Presumably its not all the live fuel from reactor 4 thats been transferred to the pool. I'm guessing you wouldn't take _all_ the rods out. I mean, would they?
posted by memebake at 6:08 PM on March 15, 2011

The NHK World report re live fuel rods in the pool may be in error: people are disputing it upthread.
posted by maudlin at 6:08 PM on March 15, 2011

It does makes sense that the reactor is much better secured. When it's running at production level it generates immense energy at high rate. Even minutes of lost cooling would be a disaster. Pools have 30 ft of water above fuel rods and are unlikely to lost that water fast, and even then temperature will only rise slowly.

Not to say that pools should not be secure than they apparently are. Would it help if they were on the first floor in a separate structure? Just open the roof and pour more water in, even with firetrucks. On the other hand, roof has to be strong enough to protect the pool from an aircraft strike.
posted by rainy at 6:08 PM on March 15, 2011

The Chair of the Physics Department at Tokyo University have been tweeting in Japanese. Here's a great English Q&A from those tweets on scientific information related to the incident.
posted by zachlipton at 6:09 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

NHK World's got a Japanese nuke geek on now saying that it's just spent fuel. This contradicts two different reporters so far, but I think I'd rather believe him.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 6:12 PM on March 15, 2011

The NHK dude was on earlier - that's a recorded broadcast, before the broadcaster said the fuel was live. Looks like wires are still crossed as to what's in #4 - but I hope the gentleman is right!
posted by tomcosgrave at 6:14 PM on March 15, 2011

Victor Gilinsky, head of the NRC during the incident at Three Mile Island, was on CNN last hour, and he also said that live fuel is being stored in the #4 pool while the reactor was offline. He's not an official anymore, but I doubt he'd say something like that if it were simply untrue.
posted by CaptApollo at 6:14 PM on March 15, 2011

Yeah thinking about it, it does seem unlikely that they'd take all the fuel rods out of a reactor and move them. i guess if they needed to do something they'd take them out a few at a time and replace them, stuff like that. (IANANS) Anyone know what can happen to live rods during 'maintenance'?
posted by memebake at 6:15 PM on March 15, 2011

OK, dug a bit. Forgive my threadsitting, but IAEA has that as well:

Japanese Earthquake Update (15 March 18:00 UTC)

"Unit 4 was shut down for a routine, planned maintenance outage on 30 November 2010. After the outage, all fuel from the reactor was transferred to the spent fuel pool."

So... was all that fuel spent, and that's why they were maintaining it?
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 6:15 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Tech note: if you find that long threads like this one hang and reload very slowly on Firefox or IE, even when you use the wonderful "show new comments" link, switching to Chrome may make a HUGE difference. Everything is coming up instantly for me now.
posted by maudlin at 6:16 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

I sure as hell hope they're using that kind of stuff right now. This is fucking Japan, they've got robots that will turn old people over in their beds for cryin' out loud. I can only imagine they're not bothering to tell us about all the cool stuff they're doing. I hope.

Most electronics are not radiation hardened. They can probably take more radiation then a human can without risking cancer, but how much I'm not sure.

Presumably its not all the live fuel from reactor 4 thats been transferred to the pool. I'm guessing you wouldn't take _all_ the rods out. I mean, would they?

If you wanted to maintain it I assume you would, right? You would want to drain all the water, send people down there, whatever. It would be kind of a problem if you left the rods in there.
posted by delmoi at 6:17 PM on March 15, 2011

To clarify about Gilinsky, he did not say "live" - that was my own poor word choice. He did say that rods had just been put into the pool, so a more accurate word might be 'fresh?'
posted by CaptApollo at 6:18 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Any info on the underlying geology beneath the plant? We arn't going to melt into a coal seam before we hit the watertable are we?
posted by humanfont at 6:22 PM on March 15, 2011

Mainichi Shinbun is confirming that :

To exchange the reactor structure(?) for regular inspection, the entire fuel assembly was taken out of the reactor core and placed in the pool. Because of this, the decay heat of the fuel was higher than the other reactors, and after the loss of power from the earthquake, they became unable to cool the water.
posted by Jeanne at 6:22 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'll be doing monitoring for affected outlying areas, determining the spread and magnitude of the casualty. Also, I'll be doing decon for the people and equipment (helicopters, planes, ships, etc.)

For instance, the Reagan battle group, Atsugi, Yokosuka are all continuously flying supplies to and fro. Reagan got contaminated from 100 miles away. A certain small amount of that has to be accepted at this point, but it can be minimized, and we can prevent the further spread to uncontrolled areas.

I'd probably better wait until I get there to say any more. The situation is changing by the hour and by the time a 10-hr flight is over, I may be on some other more-urgent task.
posted by ctmf at 6:24 PM on March 15, 2011 [24 favorites]

ctmf, Godspeed and good luck.
posted by KathrynT at 6:25 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Trying to find out more about spent-fuel pools, these links surfaced:

MIT Open Courseware: Managing Nuclear Technology : Related Resources : The Debate over the Dangers Posed by Sabotage of Spent Fuel Pools, and Possible Resulting Fires

"Alvarez, Robert, Jan Beyea, Klaus Janberg, Jungmin Kang, Ed Lyman, Allison Macfarlane, Gordon Thompson, and Frank N. von Hippel. "Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States." Science and Global Security 11 (2003): 1–51. Taylor and Francis Group. (PDF)
An article arguing there is a serious danger."

The paper itself is headlined "Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States."

Pages 8 and 9 contain a graph showing US spent-fuel inventories which may be of interest by way of comparison to the Japanese numbers upthread.

Pages 7 and 10 contain a discussion of potential fire-ejecta dispersal volumes based on stated volumes of stored fuel.

I am not qualified to evaluate the paper but it seems clear that the information therein is of real value to our discussion here and possibly elsewhere as well.

Zippy, I think you in particular may be well-situated to review and comment, if you're interested. Did you link to this earlier?

I would also note that I don't recall any mention of graphite as a constituent element in the construction of the reactors under discussion here in either thread and the paper I'm linking to does not contain the word, based on an in-Reader user of the search function.

I hope this is a meaningful contribution to our information gathering here.
posted by mwhybark at 6:29 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

polyhedron: If the fuel rods melt, any control rods present will be destroyed too. Good to get a moderator in the pool just in case.

Just a clarification. "Moderator" has a very specific definition in nuclear physics. It's a substance used to slow (but not absorb) neutrons. The presence of a moderator *increases* the reactivity, not decreases it. Boron is an *absorber*, not a moderator.

maudlin: The NHK World report re live fuel rods in the pool may be in error: people are disputing it upthread.

You shouldn't cling too closely to the distinction between "live", "fresh" or "spent" fuel in this case. It's possible to achieve criticality with each type given the proper geometry (the definition of "spent" has more to do with what the reactor can use than what danger the fuel poses). The one important distinction is that recently discharged fuel is much hotter than older fuel. If the pool at reactor 4 had newly discharged fuel, it would boil dry sooner than the others.
posted by Popular Ethics at 6:31 PM on March 15, 2011 [7 favorites]

Good Luck, ctmf!
posted by islander at 6:31 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yes, good luck!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:32 PM on March 15, 2011

mwhybark I would also note that I don't recall any mention of graphite as a constituent element in the construction of the reactors under discussion here in either thread and the paper I'm linking to does not contain the word

Yeah, I don't know where people are getting the graphite thing. BWRs don't use graphite anywhere in the core or the spent fuel pool as far as I knew. (Graphite being a moderator, it would serve to increase the reactivity of nearby fuel - the opposite of what you want in a spent fuel pool).
posted by Popular Ethics at 6:34 PM on March 15, 2011

The only mention of graphite at Daiichi was in regard to core catcher, from that article 'why I'm not worried blah blah', that turned out not to be credible.
posted by rainy at 6:36 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

To exchange the reactor structure(?) for regular inspection

I can speak to this a bit anyway. They probably do NDT on the structure every so often to check for stress fractures, decay, and who-know-what other metallurgical effects from being in the line of fire of a nuclear reactor. In fact, in one of the MANY pdfs posted by others in this thread I saw mention of the fact that Destructive Testing is almost never done on live reactors (duh, big surprise). Even in the industrial situations I've been exposed in I've never seen a use case for Destructive Testing, that is testing to failure. I'm sure there is and people do it, but it's just not useful in day to day life.

This usually consists (on metals anyway) of visual inspections, ultrasonic thickness tests, weld inspections (visual, x-ray, and penetrant testing), and others test types that I'm sure I've never dealt with.

You'd have to remove the rods to be able to inspect where they normally reside. And to inspect where they are you'd have to empty the reactor itself. Therefor, to me anyway, it doesn't seem unlikely that they'd pull them all and try to get in there and do the inspection all at once. Nor does it seem unreasonable from a functional point of view, except for the fact that they are now caught with their pants down in the worst sort of way. Even safety wise: the most dangerous/difficult times (outside of, oh, earthquakes and tsunamis) for any type of powerplant is the startup/shutdown phases. Minimizing those, and their attached chances for damage during maintenance (anyone like the idea of nuclear fuel rods swinging from a crane?), isn't as silly as it sounds now.

I'll leave the rest of the safety/prevention analysis to the mathematicians/experts, just presenting what I can for the group mind.
posted by RolandOfEld at 6:37 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

"Fair Winds and Following Seas", ctmf and Coners have feelings too.
posted by clavdivs at 6:38 PM on March 15, 2011

Sorry, should have previewed. Those testing types I listed are NDT not DT.
posted by RolandOfEld at 6:39 PM on March 15, 2011

The only mention of graphite at Daiichi was in regard to core catcher, from that article 'why I'm not worried blah blah', that turned out not to be credible.

Yeah I'm the one who dug up that now-discredited factoid. Which is why I was eager to get his credentials vetted. Mea culpa.
posted by scalefree at 6:40 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

TimeOutTokyo retweets: "W7VOA Testy TEPCO officials telling reporters difficult from the live NHK video to tell what's happening at Fukushima-1 right now."

Not exactly reassuring, considering the vast quantities of billowing white smoke coming out of Reactor 4 right now (currently running on NHK World).
posted by dialetheia at 6:41 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

So we know that the reactor 4 pool has the most spent fuel rods and possibly some relatively fresh fuel rods. It also is boiling off and producing too much radiation to safely investigate the pool. They are planning on dumping a neutron absorber to slow down any current reaction and buy more time to get cooling/more water in the pool.

Does anyone have a clear idea if the density of spent fuel and it's make-up mean that should the pool get emptied and the fuel rods begin to degrade and melt into the bottom of the pool that there would still be enough unspent fuel within the rods to generate a criticality?

Or is the primary concern that fuel rod degradation could result in a explosion that could hurl radioactive debris up and out of the spent fuel cooling pools?
posted by vuron at 6:44 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Haruki Marakami as directed by Michael Bay :( - I'm not attempting a joke here.
posted by panaceanot at 6:44 PM on March 15, 2011

Arnie Gundersen is now on the Rachel Maddow show.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:45 PM on March 15, 2011

Le Monde:

2:45 CET: The Japanese nuclear safety agency says that the smoke is coming from reactor 3.
posted by neal at 6:52 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't recall seeing this in here:

IEEE Spectrum Tech Talk Blog - Timeline: The Japanese Nuclear Emergency.
posted by mwhybark at 6:53 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I expected more detail from IEEE, they are usually among the most verbosity-for-its-own-sake minded group I know.
posted by RolandOfEld at 6:57 PM on March 15, 2011

A Hiroshima-style bomb won't just assemble itself. A lot of engineering is required to make a weapons-grade nuclear explosion. We can safely rule that outcome out.

No one is suggesting that. The problem is that the rods heat up, and get hot enough for the zirconium fuel rods to react with water producing hydrogen, which burns, and causes an explosion. It's the same kind of reaction that causes sodium or rubidium to explode when placed in water.

The heat alone can cause steam to build up and cause an explosion that way as well.
posted by delmoi at 6:58 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I wasn't meaning a big nuke explosion bitrot but rather a zirconium cladding + steam fire/explosion which while much smaller in scope is still bound to put a hell of a lot of radioactive particles into the environment.
posted by vuron at 7:00 PM on March 15, 2011

I expected more detail from IEEE, they are usually among the most verbosity-for-its-own-sake minded group I know.

The number of Es alone would indicate that.
posted by staggernation at 7:00 PM on March 15, 2011 [10 favorites]

Le Monde:

2:52 CET: Kyodo says the smoke could be coming from reactor 3's pool.
posted by neal at 7:01 PM on March 15, 2011

Er, yeah the clading. The rods are made out of either Uranium or a MOX, which is a mixture of Uranium and plutonium (which is worse if it gets released). They are coated in Zirconium, which is what's been reacting to produce hydrogen.

According to this post:

2. If all the Zircaloy fuel cladding oxidises (and as has been shown from the explosions it has been oxidising), as much as 2722 kg of hydrogen would be produced (depending on the plant, but at least it's an order of magnitude). According to WolframAlpha that amount of hydrogen would have an energy content of 393GJ

That's obviously an unlikely scenario, but it sounds like there is plenty of zirconium to cause a lot of energy to be released. Plus the potential for steam pressure to build up just from the rods themselves.
posted by delmoi at 7:10 PM on March 15, 2011

1 Palin = 1 comment per minute

I am not a nuclear engineer, but isn't 1 Palin a lethal dose?
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:16 PM on March 15, 2011 [22 favorites]

Le Monde:

3:11 CET: Short Tepco press conference: the smoke seen escaping from reactor 3 could be steam released following an increase in the temperature in the pool. Tepo says this pool contains 514 used fuel rods.
posted by neal at 7:17 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

delmoi
NYT today said (at least some?) of the rods are MOX
BBC sez fire at 4 out, now fire at 3
posted by angrycat at 7:18 PM on March 15, 2011

actually, BBC said that smoke appeared to be coming from 3, so who the fuck knows
posted by angrycat at 7:20 PM on March 15, 2011

Edano is saying that it appears that: radioactive steam is coming from a reactor, that measurements reached 1000 milliSiverts, but is now around 800 milliS.
posted by Bugbread at 7:21 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Even in the most pessimistic case ... the water level in the pool would drop only about 6 inches per hour. Thus, there is considerable time available to restore normal cooling or to implement one of several alternative backup options for cooling.

Why is is that every time I read another one of these "nothing can go wrong, idiot" statements anymore, I hear it in the voice of Vizzini?
posted by FelliniBlank at 7:22 PM on March 15, 2011 [8 favorites]

Did I hear right? 1Sv/h at the gate? Investigating possibility it is from steam escaping from containment vessel? How can they investigate if it's too radioactive to approach?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:23 PM on March 15, 2011

Even in the most pessimistic case ... the water level in the pool would drop only about 6 inches per hour. Thus, there is considerable time available to restore normal cooling or to implement one of several alternative backup options for cooling.

What were the backup options again?
posted by KokuRyu at 7:24 PM on March 15, 2011

Expletive: I didn't hear where the measurement was, but the number was indeed 1 milliSv/h = 1 Sv/h
posted by Bugbread at 7:24 PM on March 15, 2011

Edano-san, goddammit, I like you but I wish you had better interpreters. He did say, as Bugbread says, that they had a reading overnight of 1000 mSv on the site that dropped to 800mSv later.

And yeah, #@&@^@, I did hear him say something about "probability" and then "possibility" that the steam is coming from a damaged reactor vessel on Unit 3-- "part of the containment vessel is broken and... the vapor is coming out from the broken part. I am not saying this as a certainty, but as an assumption."
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 7:24 PM on March 15, 2011

I've heard so many see-sawing arguments about how serious this is, and the fallout, and everything else that I have no idea what to believe. I can't even imagine being in Japan right now. I think I should just stop following the news, since there's nothing I can do about it, and it doesn't do anything but make me anxious and depressed.
posted by codacorolla at 7:27 PM on March 15, 2011

CNN reporting from a source I missed that all workers are being evacuated? They seem puzzled & shocked, are questioning if it means the earlier evacuation of all but 50. Don't want to rumor-monger, want to emphasize this is highly suspect & unconfirmed.
posted by scalefree at 7:28 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Le Monde says CNN's source is the Japanese government.
posted by neal at 7:30 PM on March 15, 2011

Listening to live press conference on NHK World, and I believe they have evacuated everyone. 1000 mSv/h would definitely require everyone to evacuate.

On preview, just heard now that "workers cannot enter the compound".
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:31 PM on March 15, 2011

CNN reporting from a source I missed that all workers are being evacuated?

I'm hearing the same from MSNBC.
posted by ZeusHumms at 7:31 PM on March 15, 2011

Edano also just said in his press conference that everyone is being evacuated. From the translation, it seemed very clear to my ears that he meant the 50 are leaving now while the radiation levels are high. Not sure how long lived that is and the press don't seem to be asking specifically about that, so maybe it was a translation error? The tone of the conference certainly isn't phenomenally negative. Trying to find another source on this.
posted by zachlipton at 7:31 PM on March 15, 2011

More than 60 hours has elapsed since the cooling stopped in the fuel pools. They were 30 ft deep to the fuel and the fuel is 15 ft for a total depth of 45 ft.

If the fuel is burning, its no longer underwater. But I can't tell if the reports of the fuel burning are garbles on not.

If the radiation keeps increasing, there will be a time when they have to abandon the site. Unless we start seeing things stabilize, that's the way it's going.
posted by warbaby at 7:31 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

It looks like the helo option for the pool(s) in building 1 is out, presumably because a more gradual flow rate is required. A sudden drop of 700-2000 gallons from above would likely turn to radioactive steam, not to mention damage to the pool contents from the sudden increase in weight. So, that means hoses have to be brought up to the fourth floor in building 1, and presumably not by robots, to do the filling?
posted by nj_subgenius at 7:31 PM on March 15, 2011

CNN reporting from a source I missed that all workers are being evacuated?

I'm hearing the same from MSNBC.

FWIW, Edano said something to the effect of "all workers being pulled out" on the NHK feed. My guess would be that the American news outlets are working from this, but I could be wrong.

Very scary if it means that the 50 remaining workers have left...
posted by Despondent_Monkey at 7:33 PM on March 15, 2011

MSNBC seeming to say all workers from reactor 4 are being evac'd due to too high radiation levels. FUUUUUUU
posted by wowbobwow at 7:33 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

NYT says it too.
posted by Flunkie at 7:35 PM on March 15, 2011

Edano has said the phrase "for further details we'll have to get information from the task force" or from TEPCO or virtually everyone besides him. I can't imagine that no one would be asking him about it if all the workers were being evacuated.
posted by zachlipton at 7:35 PM on March 15, 2011

guy on NHK just said that he misspoke and said millisieverts instead of microsievers, could that 1000 figure be off? deep breaths, people.
posted by Mach5 at 7:35 PM on March 15, 2011

WaPo reports it.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:36 PM on March 15, 2011

I don't like it when Sanjay Gupta has a furrowed brow.
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:37 PM on March 15, 2011

How does oxidation/heating of the Zircaloy cladding generate hydrogen? Is it just releasing hydrogen that had already adsorbed to it? Or is it somehow catalyzing the decomposition of water into H and O? (I didn't think you could split water apart simply by heating - you need an electric current, no?)
posted by Quietgal at 7:37 PM on March 15, 2011

All workers being evac'd; not just reactor 4. Very preliminary, mind you.
posted by wowbobwow at 7:38 PM on March 15, 2011

Mach5, I believe that misspeaking was regarding Fukushima Daini, 10km away, where things appear to be going much better. They would not be evacuating workers if the radiation was at that level, and it would, in fact, reflect a massive improvement in the situation.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:38 PM on March 15, 2011

And now NHK World has cut to the business news, which is simply insane at this juncture.
posted by zachlipton at 7:39 PM on March 15, 2011

I think it's utterly irresponsible for US news sources to say everyone is leaving without further details. Talk about potentially unnecessary mass panic.
posted by Procloeon at 7:40 PM on March 15, 2011

@TimeOutTokyo, who watched the same press conference, just Tweeted about gas shortages, not evacuations.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:40 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think it's utterly irresponsible for US news sources to say everyone is leaving without further details. Talk about potentially unnecessary mass panic.

Said US news sources have been utterly worthless throughout the whole crisis. At one point I flipped past CNN and Wolf Blitzer claimed that NHK was a CNN "affiliate" - which would be news to me since NHK is a state-run Japanese broadcaster.

I think someone mentioned it upthread already, but if you can't understand Japanese, there is an NHK World app for the iPhone which allows you to receive their feed in English - a far better option than the craptastic American "coverage" of the situation.
posted by Despondent_Monkey at 7:44 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Jim Walsh on CNN was talking awhile ago about "sheltering in place." Now all I can think about is Indiana Jones and a refrigerator.
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:44 PM on March 15, 2011

This one seems like a useful news filter/aggregator for the topic, not so much on last minute information as to show what the media reporting in general is saying about things all around the world.
posted by Iosephus at 7:45 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Katz is continuing his usual deal, maybe starting to read q's now. Anybody on his tweetstream? Ask about the worker evac thing.
posted by mwhybark at 7:46 PM on March 15, 2011

Long PDF of nuke eng class notes about zirconium/ zircaloy. from UW-Madison's Nuclear Engineering Materials (NEEP423) class Fall 1997. Engineers?

(A later syllabus of topics covered in that class in 1999.)
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 7:46 PM on March 15, 2011

Just saw on Twitter someone quoting Edano as saying there might be breaches in containment vessels at 1 and 3. Can anyone confirm?
posted by spitefulcrow at 7:46 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeahhh as far as journalistic integrity goes for broadcast news in the US, this is par for the course. Report first, confirm later.
posted by wowbobwow at 7:46 PM on March 15, 2011

How far are the reactors located from the ocean itself? I wonder if you could get one of those high powered firefighting boats close enough that it could continously spray water into the cooling pools.

Granted it seems likely that any firefighting boats near fukushima got hammered by the tsunami but it seems like there has to be some way to spray water on the cooling pools in a more efficient manner than using helicopters or maybe firefighting planes.
posted by vuron at 7:47 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Le Monde:

3:43 CET: Yukio Edano also says reactor 3's containment vessel has been "partially damaged."
posted by neal at 7:47 PM on March 15, 2011

After Edano finished, the guys on NHK (Japan, not World) summarized. Here goes:

At 8:34JST (23:43 UTC), white smoke-like stuff was spotted coming from reactor 3. This is under investigation.
Measurements at the front gate reached 1000 milliSieverts (1,000,000 microSieverts, 1 Sievert). It later fell, but then began rising again from around 10:00 JST (01:00 UTC).
Based on this, they have concluded that the containment vessel is releasing radioactive steam (which is what looks like white smoke).
If true, this means radioactive containment functionality has been lost, which sucks (okay, I'm paraphrasing the NHK guy here). This is possibly also true for 2.

Regarding reactor 4, there have been fires yesterday and today. The used fuel pool has lost its cooling abilities, and there is possibly a fire there. If this keeps occurring, rods may break down, releasing heavy radiation. They need to add water, but heavy radiation is impeding this. Helicopter watering is off the table for safety reasons.

Reactors 5 and 6 spent fuel pools have lost their cooling abilities, and temperatures are rising, but water is not boiling.
posted by Bugbread at 7:47 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

@ema about to give rundown on Edano's pressconf
posted by mwhybark at 7:48 PM on March 15, 2011

I think it's utterly irresponsible for US news sources to say everyone is leaving without further details.

Utterly annoying, at any rate. WaPo has a banner headline CREW AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BEING EVACUATED OVER RADIATION RISK, and it links to an old story that says 50-70 workers are still at the plant.

NYT mentions the (supposed) evacuation in The Lede, but its top headline still says "50 Workers Are Plant’s Last Defense."
posted by torticat at 7:50 PM on March 15, 2011

That is kind of weird, because all I heard today/yesterday was that there were 800 workers there but only 50-70 were going in at a time (because if it was more than that they would run out of people getting exposed to their max limits of radiation).
posted by Jeanne at 7:52 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

So nothing from reliable media sources about evacuation. Oy.

And on NHK, we're waiting for Edano (who has finally gotten some sleep).

Excuse me, I'm going to go shoot my tv now. (I have AJE and NHK World on my iPhone. I'm solid.)
posted by maudlin at 7:52 PM on March 15, 2011

@ema: Edano: "no change in evac order," I think. Depending on consistent readings or something.
posted by mwhybark at 7:55 PM on March 15, 2011

The US media handling of this whole thing is almost certainly fueling the hysteria concerning the risk to the West Coast.

Sorry guys but if any event didn't need excessive sensationalism thrown on it to achieve better ratings it would be this crisis. Give people the information currently known and save some of the doomsday scenarios for the next thunderstorm.

I was watching broadcast TV earlier and the local Fox affiliate (sue me I was watching Glee) was actually using the Chiba refinery fire as their graphic for the fires at the power plant. Needless to say I raged.
posted by vuron at 7:55 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

They've reported on NHK World that the government had to raise the legal radiation limit (2.5 times) to let workers back in...
posted by yeoz at 7:55 PM on March 15, 2011

If we're asking about evacuation of civilians, I can answer: Edano and NHK both say that the evac radius has not changed: Total evac for 20km, and "stay inside with doors closed" for ring extending from 20km to 30km radius.

If you're asking about evac of workers, sorry, I didn't catch that.
posted by Bugbread at 7:57 PM on March 15, 2011

The Navy, JDF or US, has tons of firefighting capacity and there's a big damn dock to tie up at. For days we've been hearing they don't have enough water.

In ordinary fires, white smoke means steam from water being used to put it out. Black smoke is uncontrolled fire. This situation, I don't know.

When zirconium or other metals burn in air, they are hot enough to disassociate water into oxygen and hydrogen. The oxygen gets combined with the metal and the hydrogen gets turned loose. In powder form, zirconium is highly flammable.
posted by warbaby at 7:58 PM on March 15, 2011

I DO NOT have a reliable source for this. I did not see the press conference. I am hearing on Twitter that Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency people are being evacuated but other workers are still on site.
posted by Jeanne at 7:58 PM on March 15, 2011

They're more than likely trying to rotate workers in and out of areas with high areas of radiation, since fractionation is standard practice with high levels of radiation.

Since the radiation dose is calibrated towards people at greatest risk of exposure, raising the limit for healthy plant workers shouldn't be too much of an issue.

For the most part the workers are safe. The problem is they're almost as blind to what's going on as we are.
posted by dw at 8:01 PM on March 15, 2011

NHK World going live with domestic noon news in translation, maybe we'll get some answers.
posted by zachlipton at 8:02 PM on March 15, 2011

zippy writes "How long can a pump designed for fresh water operate continuously with salt water running through it?"

A pretty long time. It'll depend on the material of the pump. Assuming they aren't made out of something like aluminum salt water corrosion damage to pumps is usually a long term problem. Brass or many stainless steels would be hardly effected at all.

Bugbread writes "The geiger counter isn't waterproof, so it's installed inside his house, pointing at the outside window. He lives in a wooden house or apartment, and has confirmed that it gives the same readings both inside and outside the house."

Isn't alpha radiation stop by something as basic as a sheet of paper? Do gieger counters not detect alpha radiation?

nj_subgenius writes "They're going to need a lot of helos, fuel and water if that's the plan. Medium-capacity firefighting copters will hol at most 700 gallons of water. [...] OK, so take a flyer here: a 20 foot by 40 foot that is at least 20 feet deep is...way over 100,000 gallons.
"Maybe I'm all bent out of shape, but this sounds like desperation unless the boil-off rate of the pool is *really* slow, or I made some other stupid mistake. "The idea of using copters for this doesn't feel at all right."

Sounds like this will be a last ditch but even at 700 gallons a trip a helicopter could dump a swack load of water into the building. I've seen fire suppression helicopters working a fire on the slopes next to a lake and they were making a round trip in under five minutes. At five minutes a trip and 700 gallons per trip that is 8400 gallons an hour and over 100,000 gallons in 12 hours (assuming they'll want to do this in daylight)

Quietgal writes "How does oxidation/heating of the Zircaloy cladding generate hydrogen? Is it just releasing hydrogen that had already adsorbed to it? Or is it somehow catalyzing the decomposition of water into H and O? (I didn't think you could split water apart simply by heating - you need an electric current, no?)"

Catalyzing isn't the right word because the cladding is being transformed by the reaction but essentially yes. The cladding is reacting with the water chemically (IE: oxidizing) and releasing hydrogen. I don't know about the fuel rod cladding but it is pretty straight forward with many metals. EG Iron: Fe + H₂0 gives FeO (IE: Rust) + H₂ (IE: Hydrogen gas) + some heat. The heat is what makes air activated hand warmers work.
posted by Mitheral at 8:03 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

NHK rerunning Edano's press conference. They are evacuating all non-essential personnel.
posted by Jeanne at 8:03 PM on March 15, 2011

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv
posted by mikelieman at 8:06 PM on March 15, 2011

hysteria concerning the risk to the West Coast.

And if you're in the US or elsewhere outside Japan, make sure to tell everyone you know:

Please, please, please do NOT buy iodine tablets if you are not in Japan right now. If things go downhill, there could be upwards of 30 million people who will be in desperate need of protection from radiation. This media-induced panic is causing people who don't need it to buy up all the iodine, potentially constraining supplies at a time of great need.
posted by Despondent_Monkey at 8:06 PM on March 15, 2011 [7 favorites]

CNN showed the portion of Edano's statement, in which he was translated to say "all" of the workers being evacuated. I got the sense he either misspoke or there was some sort of translation error.
posted by Dr. Zira at 8:06 PM on March 15, 2011

NISA Press conference on NHK now: Want to explain what they know so far, incident is developing and survey is continuing. As of 10:30, they believed it was reactor #3. Chief cabinet secretary said 800-600 milisiverts, but he was wrong, it was microsiverts then. Later it went up to the milisivert level. Around 10:40, plant operators were ordered to evacuate. At reactors #1-#4, no one stationed there permanently, people just approach when its necessary, but they were ordered to evacuate because the reading was so high. 10:45- 6.4 milisiverts, 10:55: 2.9 milisiverts.

So they did evacuate??
posted by zachlipton at 8:09 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

According to NBC's Robert Bazell on MSNBC, all workers evacuated for 45 mins due to spike in radiation, now back in. This was evidently off camera with who he called "the chief Cabinet Secretary". Bazell said the cab sec said radiation spike "may have been a breach in containment in reactor #3".
posted by ..ooOOoo....ooOOoo.. at 8:10 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

People here in Vancouver are freaking out already. The pharmacists were telling a guy in front of me in line what sounded like very oft-repeated line about not being allowed to give out potassium iodine tablets.
posted by wowbobwow at 8:10 PM on March 15, 2011

NISA presser: Containment vessel in reactor #3 possibly broken. We still don't know why the steam or why the radiation reading is now so high. At the monitoring post, [his cell phone rings] at 10:30 main gate - 1361 microsiverts. Up from before that. 10:20 - 2399 microsiverts. 10:30 - 1361 microsiverts. 10:41 - something around 6400 microsiverts [didn't hear exactly]. Then 10:55 - 2.9 milisiverts. 11 - 3.391 milisiverts. So it's going up and down.
posted by zachlipton at 8:13 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

This is the same mob mentality that surrounded the Y2K B***S**t.
posted by Jumpin Jack Flash at 8:15 PM on March 15, 2011

> In powder form, zirconium is highly flammable.

Many metals that normally seem pretty inert are good and flammable when they're finely divided. Try holding a butane lighter to a wad of fine-grade steel wool. It will light and catch fire all over.

(PS don't test this inside or hold the steel wool in your fingers. The rate it flares up will surprise you. You'll go OW and stick your fingers in your mouth, and then realize you just dropped the flaming wool on your living room carpet and it's still a ball of fire. Or maybe it rolled under the sofa.)
posted by jfuller at 8:15 PM on March 15, 2011 [12 favorites]

Hopefully some government entity or such will step in a purchase current stockpiles of potassium iodine from manufacturers so that it can be sent to people who might actually need it rather than be used to profit from the fears of misinformed Americans (and Canadians).
posted by vuron at 8:16 PM on March 15, 2011

This is the same mob mentality that surrounded the Y2K B***S**t.

FWIW, in our corporate IT shop at the time, we did a whole lot of Y2K remediation to ensure that my NYE2K vacation plans would be uninterrupted...
posted by mikelieman at 8:18 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Gad, this constant confusion between microsieverts and millisieverts is just a huge source of chaos and misinformation. Going forward, the powers that be need to come up with a new naming standard.
posted by marsha56 at 8:18 PM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

Mizuno, the science dude on NHK, says that they're saying the white smoke is not from damage to the containment, but to the suppression chamber.

He's also saying that the temporary evacuation was not because the radiation levels were OMG SCARY HIGH (which 1000 milliSieverts would have been) but because it's better to not work when the radiation is high, and save your allowable dose of radiation for when the radiation is lower.
posted by Jeanne at 8:19 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'd like to suggest Gozons after the amount of energy emitted by gozer the gozerian during his brief stay in NYC.
posted by Lord_Pall at 8:20 PM on March 15, 2011 [6 favorites]

wowbobwow writes "The pharmacists were telling a guy in front of me in line what sounded like very oft-repeated line about not being allowed to give out potassium iodine tablets."

Not being allowed? Does KI require a prescription?

jfuller writes "(PS don't test this inside or hold the steel wool in your fingers. The rate it flares up will surprise you. You'll go OW and stick your fingers in your mouth, and then realize you just dropped the flaming wool on your living room carpet and it's still a ball of fire. Or maybe it rolled under the sofa.)"

You know, hypothetically.
posted by Mitheral at 8:21 PM on March 15, 2011

There is no Gozer. Only Zuul.
posted by Dr. Zira at 8:22 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

This is the same mob mentality that surrounded the Y2K

My jaw dropped to the floor when I woke up this morning and saw the news coverage about people lined up at drug stores to buy mouthwash to drink because they believed some crap rumor on the Internet. I mean, I have a son and would very much like to see him survive all this, but seriously, people?

And there's only so much kombu one can consume in one go. Ew.
posted by misozaki at 8:24 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

@marsha56. How about 1000 craps = 100 oh fucks = 1 dear god
posted by ..ooOOoo....ooOOoo.. at 8:24 PM on March 15, 2011 [15 favorites]

Not being allowed? Does KI require a prescription?

No, it doesn't. He probably said it that way to avoid an argument or because his boss forbid him. CBC coverage
posted by blockhead at 8:25 PM on March 15, 2011

Mitheral asks: Isn't alpha radiation stop by something as basic as a sheet of paper? Do gieger counters not detect alpha radiation?

Some geiger counters have a thin "window" on the tube that will pass alpha. Usually, this is covered by a metal sleeve because it's fragile. Lots of geiger counters won't detect alpha.
posted by warbaby at 8:25 PM on March 15, 2011

Mitheral: sounded like a recent hold had been placed on selling it by the province to prevent panicky people from wiping out supplies or hoarding it.
posted by wowbobwow at 8:25 PM on March 15, 2011

KI is not especially good for you. Do not take it until recommended by rad health/medical professionals. Do not take it "just in case." I'm no doctor, and can't remember/explain why, but that's what I've been trained (in training for scenarios just like this.)

Just throwing that out there.
posted by ctmf at 8:26 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

I can eat a lot of kombu, but apparently you'd need to eat 45 pounds of it to have any thyroid-blocking effect. That's more than I can eat, and I'm kind of a glutton.
posted by infinitywaltz at 8:27 PM on March 15, 2011

This is the same mob mentality that surrounded the Y2K B***S**t.

More like 9/11.

When I had a genuine cousin-to-the-flesh-eating staph infection a couple months later, getting the antibiotic Cipro was a hassle from all the fraidy cats protecting themselves from terrorist anthrax.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:28 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Floam: from what I hear, it's tougher to choke down than a whole boullion cube. So, there's that deterrent, at least.
posted by ctmf at 8:29 PM on March 15, 2011

This seems to be a cascading effect, I just heard on the news that the pulled the 50 workers off the site, this was MSNBC reporting that. I was in the navy and worked with the nukes, is there any good resources that I can get good info on this, thias thread is extremly long and I just want to get the best info on conditions there.
posted by ionized at 8:29 PM on March 15, 2011

You could give the KI seeking people a geiger counter and scrub brush and tell them to point the counter at their skin, and stop when it reads zero...
/end rant
posted by birdsquared at 8:30 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Some geiger counters have a thin "window" on the tube that will pass alpha. Usually, this is covered by a metal sleeve because it's fragile. Lots of geiger counters won't detect alpha.

If the counter's Gieger-Mueller tube is completely encased in a metal housing, it won't pick up alpha. Better counters have a wand with a metal screen that allows alpha particles through.
posted by clarknova at 8:32 PM on March 15, 2011

If you just read the last 100 or so posts at any given time you should have a pretty collated collection of what we know ionized. The situation is highly fluid and the high rate of posts reflects that. It's not really unusual to leave for half an hour and 30-50 posts will pop up.
posted by vuron at 8:32 PM on March 15, 2011

Good observations, Mitheral
posted by nj_subgenius at 8:33 PM on March 15, 2011

He's also saying that the temporary evacuation was not because the radiation levels were OMG SCARY HIGH (which 1000 milliSieverts would have been) but because it's better to not work when the radiation is high, and save your allowable dose of radiation for when the radiation is lower.

So the pullout is only temporary while they wait for the level to go down. This makes sense & relieves me somewhat.
posted by scalefree at 8:34 PM on March 15, 2011

Just popped in vuron, Thanks for the reply, is the fire at number 4 in the containment pool?
posted by ionized at 8:35 PM on March 15, 2011

Asshole question, I'm sorry, but:

Can any of the Japanese speakers on here confirm that they have directly heard on Japanese media that Edano used milliS when he meant microS? I know it was on NHK World, and I know it's being bandied around other sources, but I would like to know if anyone has heard it directly from a Japanese source. I was out of the room for a while, and missed around 15 minutes of NHK broadcasting, but it seems like the kind of thing I would have heard repeated, and I haven't heard anything.
posted by Bugbread at 8:36 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thank you scalefree, my worry level of worry is done, but with the workers gone who is watching?
posted by ionized at 8:37 PM on March 15, 2011

*down not done, still a very fluid sit
posted by ionized at 8:38 PM on March 15, 2011

Thank you scalefree, my worry level of worry is done, but with the workers gone who is watching?

Umm, I think the answer to that is "nobody".
posted by scalefree at 8:39 PM on March 15, 2011

@marsha56. How about 1000 craps = 100 oh fucks = 1 dear god
posted by ..ooOOoo....ooOOoo.. at 10:24 PM on March 15 [7 favorites -] Favorite added! [!]

I'm sold. It's a damn sight easier to follow that what they're using now.

And thanks for the tension breaker. ;-)
posted by marsha56 at 8:39 PM on March 15, 2011

Bugbread, I heard it on the NISA press conference that followed Edano's press conference. "Edano said milliSv, but the actual figure is microSv."
posted by Jeanne at 8:39 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think the most recent info on 4 is that the fire was a flare up from the previous fire yesterday and is not the cooling pool itself but rather various flammable substances in the vicinity. That being said it seem apparent that the spent fuel pool for reactor 4 is boiling off at a concerning rate and that they want to slow that rate but currently can't approach the pool because ambient radiation and temperatures are too high.
posted by vuron at 8:40 PM on March 15, 2011

OK, I read through all that and I'm confused: was the reading actually 1,000 mSv / 1 Sv, or was that a misstatement and we're looking at 1,000 uSv / 1 mSv?

On preview, Jeanne, it seems you're saying that's correct, yes?
posted by KathrynT at 8:41 PM on March 15, 2011

And also the live fuel from #4 may be in its spent fuel pool, put there for the maintenance cycle.
posted by scalefree at 8:43 PM on March 15, 2011

They took multiple readings over the last hour that were in the range of 2 mSv to 6.4 mSv. They never had a reading as high as 1000 mSv/ 1 Sv.

(The 400 mSv reading yesterday morning was from a portable reader right near the radiation source; these readings in the range of a few mSv are at the main gate.)
posted by Jeanne at 8:44 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

AJ: All times are local in Japan GMT+9)

*
Timestamp:
12:00am

" Yukio Edano, the chief cabinet secretary, held a brief conference about the nuclear situation, these are the key points.

- An appeal not to panic buy fuel especially in areas not affected by the quake, they think the containment vessel on Reactor No3 has been damaged

- Radioaction levels have fluctuated throughout the day, at one point all staff were evacuated for safety due to a dramtic increase in radiation at the front gate.

- Tempratures are rising in reactors number 5/6 and in the spent fuel rod tank in reactor no 4.

- They are considering the option of spraying water onto the heating reactors from the air.There are issues getting water into Reactor numbe 4 containment pool."

Fuck: me
posted by futz at 8:44 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

1 millisievert not 1 sievert seems to be the current consensus Kathryn.
posted by vuron at 8:45 PM on March 15, 2011

Thanks vuron, does anyone think that this is getting out of control, I know how the Navy handles these thing, this seems to be an out of control situation. And what is cuasing the fires?
posted by ionized at 8:45 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Just out of curiosity, are the Japanese terms for 'micro' and 'milli' as they're being used in this context close enough to easily mispronounce and get confused?
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:46 PM on March 15, 2011

Also, I talked to my dad (who is a nuclear chemist, he operates on teensy teensy scales) about why the F there are so GOD DAMNED MANY DIFFERENT UNITS for this shit. Roentgens, rads, rems, Grays, Sieverts, curies, becquerels. . .. . . Apparently rads:rems::Grays:Sieverts, in that they both measure absorbed energy but rems/Sieverts correct for the additional health risk from alpha or beta particles. For gamma rays, rads=rems (I think) and Grays=Sieverts (I'm pretty sure.) Roentgens measure the ionizing effect of radiation on dry air at standard pressure and temperature. Curies and becquerels both measure emissions, in decays per second, and are typically used to describe a quantity of radioactive material, not radiation.

So there we go then. Everybody clear?
posted by KathrynT at 8:49 PM on March 15, 2011 [15 favorites]

This is being writ as a script, right? We're on a Truman Show stage or have accidently tuned into a false news channel, right?

It looks like the worst-case scenario is going to continue be pushed. The tweetstream now suggests an earthquake warning. Can eyeballs on the ground confirm? Twitter is only so believeable.

And if there's a quake warning, then isn't there also a big chance of a subsequent tsunami warning?

[Gob]: Oh come on!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:49 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

ZeusHumms: No, the words are the same as English (well, roughly: mirishiberu versus maikuroshiberu)
posted by Bugbread at 8:49 PM on March 15, 2011

Fires in reactors 1-3 seem to be related to hydrogen gas build up in the secondary containment system. Fires in reactor 4 seem to be related to the explosion in reactor 3 which sent flaming debris into reactor 4 which caught some sort of substance (likely a part of the current maintenance cycle on reactor 4).

There is a lot of outgassing of steam/vapor on one of the damaged reactors which is apparently believed to be a containment failure in the primary or secondary containment.
posted by vuron at 8:50 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Jeanne, vuron: thank you. I am much more clear now.
posted by KathrynT at 8:51 PM on March 15, 2011

I hate to feed the excessive posts, but can someone link to a summary? I was offline for almost 8 hours (I has to sleep) I have about 300 posts to wade through. And you guys don't exactly write for Archie Comics, I need to use my brain.

Thanks again to all who provide professional opinion and can translate. This thread is probably the best I have ever seen in a decade of reading MeFi threads to get information from knowlegable people. Thanks. :)
posted by chemoboy at 8:51 PM on March 15, 2011

The Japanese terms are 'micro' (maikuro) and 'milli.' (miri) I don't think they're close enough to easily get confused...but I think it's plausible that a stressed, fatigued non-scientist could mix them up in either language.

(Trivia from Twitter: There were lots of people saying "I mixed up Sievert and seatbelt!" or "I mixed up Sievert and Schubert!". They sound pretty similar.)
posted by Jeanne at 8:51 PM on March 15, 2011

To those needing some comic relief: hie thee hence to the Penguins on a plane thread, already in progress.
posted by wowbobwow at 8:52 PM on March 15, 2011

The differences between roentgens, rems, sieverts, curies, etc all threw me for a loop at the beginning of this process as well. I am used to older documentaries typically using roentgens or rems so this sievert unit was throwing me off. I understand that sieverts are the accepted SI measurement of radiation but it seems like many of the legacy terms are still in common use.
posted by vuron at 8:53 PM on March 15, 2011

I'm fully in favor of the crap/fuck/god scale. Just as long as it's the metric one - an Imperial Fuck is a different creature entirely.

(Okay, back to lurking, I have nothing remotely useful to contribute.)
posted by cmyk at 8:53 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

They seem to have lost the little control that they have, thanks for pulluing me up to date.
posted by ionized at 8:53 PM on March 15, 2011

mwhybark linked to on a paper discussing cooling ponds and spent fuel. While I'm not qualified to evaluate the claims, I can say that this one rather stood out:

"If the entire core of a reactor had been unloaded into the spent fuel pool only a few days after
shutdown, the time [for boiloff of all the water] could be as short as a day."

The authors continue:

"All spent-fuel pools are connected via fuel-transfer canals or tubes to the cavity holding the reactor pressure vessel. All can be partially drained through failure of interconnected piping systems, moveable gates, or seals designed to close the space between the pressure vessel and its surrounding reactor cavity"

It is reasonable to expect that some of the cooling ponds are at risk for multiple failures of this sort, given the thermal stresses, fires, explosions, earthquake, and roof and crane debris (am I missing anything?)

Then there's this:

"Once the pool water level is below the top of the fuel, the gamma radiation level would climb to 10,000 rems/hr at the edge of the pool and 100’s of rems/hr in regions of the spent-fuel building out of direct sight of the fuel because of scattering of the gamma rays by air and the building structure ...

At the lower radiation level, lethal doses would be incurred within
about an hour. Given such dose rates, the NRC staff assumed that further
ad hoc interventions would not be possible."

That is, once the pool is uncovered, the NRC did not consider any ways of covering it again as they would likely be lethal to attempt.

In ponds where the arrays are densely packed, they are put in boxes with sides made of boron (to minimize the interaction of a fuel array with its nearby neighbor). This actually inhibits cooling should the water drain, as the boxes do not allow for as much convective (air) cooling.

The NRC's back of the envelope calculations, assuming only radiative cooling, and thus the guarantee of 'hot spots' within a fuel array, for extraordinarily old, spent fuel are 2000C at the bottom of the assembly.

That's about 800C below the melting point of uranium oxide. Not comforting.
posted by zippy at 8:53 PM on March 15, 2011 [6 favorites]

KathrynT: yes, exactly right.

Also, Google knows how to convert the units, if you're more familiar with old-style curie/rem. Type in '400 millisieverts in rem' or '10000 terabecquerels in curies' and viola.

Yes, viola. I pronounce it that way, too, just to annoy word sticklers.
posted by ctmf at 8:54 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

There is indeed an earthquake right now (12:52PM in Japan) on the coast on Chiba Prefecture (Mag 5) and in Ibaraki (Mag 4).
posted by KokuRyu at 8:55 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

Two very good posts from the Symmetry factor blog by physicist Alexey Petrov about the reactor situation:

What is happening at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi power plant? (March 12)

Update on the situation at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant (March 15)
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:56 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Looks like the reactor got hit with about magnitude 3.
posted by Jeanne at 8:56 PM on March 15, 2011

Bad situation at the moment, really it seems to be going from bad to worse
posted by ionized at 8:57 PM on March 15, 2011

I just prayed for those poor bastards remaining at the plant. I couldn't say that would do any good, but I believe we might be in the hope-and-pray zone at present. Casting religious beliefs aside for the moment, I'd very much like to believe that brave people can save the day. That's all I have at the moment, good night...
posted by nj_subgenius at 8:58 PM on March 15, 2011

...and thank you, ctmf
posted by nj_subgenius at 9:00 PM on March 15, 2011

Yikes zippy those potential gamma radiation doses are frightening. I assume that at that point in time they would have to try to erect some sort of encasement like the Chernobyl-4 sarcophagus in order to contain the radiation. I wonder at what point in time do you just say screw it we are going to just bring concrete trucks in and fill up the pool and the rods with concrete and then seal the place, and wait a thousand years or so.
posted by vuron at 9:01 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

b1tr0t writes "Iodine can apparently be used in the production of meth. The war on drugs will probably be a greater cause for the lack of availability of Iodine than hoarding."

This is usually less of a problem in Canada. We can still buy as much pseudoephedrine as we want and it isn't even behind the counter rather on the shelf with all the other allergy medicine.
posted by Mitheral at 9:02 PM on March 15, 2011

Just to underline: "Once the pool water level is below the top of the fuel [...], the NRC did not consider any ways of covering it again as they would likely be lethal to attempt."

And do we think based on the 6"/hour figure (given way above, for how fast the water level in the storage pool might drop) that the storage pool for #4 could very well be at that point?
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:02 PM on March 15, 2011

Any one know why the news seems so very happy, and all I want is facts?
posted by ionized at 9:03 PM on March 15, 2011

Apparently the quake warning is bogus; no retweets beyond the first few.

Huge spike in radiation, workers evac'd, and now returning. It's a kamikaze mission; they are heros.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:04 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Remeber the old early '80s Atari game called SCRAM? You basically got a piping diagram of a PWR, and you could control rod height, coolant pump speed, and cutout valve position. Important parameters were displayed, like hot leg temp, cold leg temp, Tsteam, Psteam, and turbine output power. Your job was to start up the plant and accumulate MWH output.

Periodically, an earthquake would happen, in cheesy graphics, and something would break. You didn't get to see what broke, though, you had to deduce it from what happened to your plant parameters. Then you could select what you thought the problem was, and attempt to fix it.

Fixing it cost 5 workers, whether you were right or wrong (apparently a worker in this plant could only do one job before receiving all his allowable exposure for the year.) You only got 80 workers total, no more. If you were wrong, you'd have to figure that out from your readings and try again.

Neat game. I've often wished I had a copy since then.
posted by ctmf at 9:05 PM on March 15, 2011 [17 favorites]

five fresh fish, I think the earthquake happened. I saw the NHK camera shaking in Mito.
posted by Jeanne at 9:06 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Photo of No. 4 reactor from NHK.

The photo, shot the day before from the northwestern side of the reactor, shows that a large portion of the building's outer wall has collapsed. There is an 8-meter hole on the 4th floor, and the interior is visible.

Another 8-meter square hole was also confirmed on the outer wall of the building. Both appeared after an explosion early on Tuesday.
posted by schnee at 9:07 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Workers are heros FFF, hopefully then can get this contained, yet they seem to have so many problems, wich one to attack first...
posted by ionized at 9:07 PM on March 15, 2011

ionized: "Bad situation at the moment, really it seems to be going from bad to worse."

ionized, all due respect, we are just as capable of drawing our own conclusions as you are. Just like you, we certainly hope the people who are working the problem, including ctmf, who is headed over there to help shortly, will be able to resolve the situation in the most positive manner.

I also suggest you scroll upthread about 300 posts and start reading. You'll get a sense of the both the confusion and the resources we've been able to uncover here.
posted by mwhybark at 9:08 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Ok, mwhhybark, appreciate the advice. I really know how dire this situation is, will not be commenting anymore.
posted by ionized at 9:11 PM on March 15, 2011

b1tr0t: Kind of. More like the instructions screen of that, with numbers all over it. Very nerdy. It even had a pressurizer and charging pumps so you could control primary plant pressure by charging, discharging, venting, and using pressurizer heaters.

It was only years later when I became an operator that I realized how realistic it was for such a simple game. The manual had an appendix on thermodynamics the size of a textbook, and you really needed it to learn how to play. That's probably why the game flopped. That, or because it was for the Atari 800.
posted by ctmf at 9:17 PM on March 15, 2011 [6 favorites]

mwhybark: Is that necessary? Posting links to summaries may be helpful for other people coming into the thread.
posted by delmoi at 9:19 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

screenshots of SCRAM video game (just followed the link from the wiki article)
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:20 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

I had SCRAM, and LOVED it.
posted by ltracey at 9:21 PM on March 15, 2011

ionized: "Ok, mwhhybark, appreciate the advice. I really know how dire this situation is, will not be commenting anymore"

delmoi: "mwhybark: Is that necessary? Posting links to summaries may be helpful for other people coming into the thread"

delmoi's right on about summaries being helpful. ionized, I didn't mean to chase you off, just hoping the 'doooom' input could be minimized.
posted by mwhybark at 9:28 PM on March 15, 2011

Regarding SCRAM, I actually spent some time looking for a simple reactor sim like that today, struck out. hmmm.
posted by mwhybark at 9:29 PM on March 15, 2011

Not sure if it's appropriate for MetaFilter or could ever quite be the same as the actual hardware, but just googling, I find SCRAM available for download from a few sites, along with an emulator for the 800 that works on most desktop computers.

Sounds very cool.

If this is misplaced or if abandonware is not kosher, delete away.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:31 PM on March 15, 2011 [11 favorites]

According to this:

"The Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), which operates the Fukushima plant, said it may pour water and fire retardant from helicopters to stop fuel rods from being exposed to the air and releasing even more radioactivity,"

I think that we've finally found a worthwhile use for UAVs. How about it, USA?
posted by Existential Dread at 9:31 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

I just found, what I think may be, a SCRAM Atari 800 dumpSCRAM Atari 800 dump.

Never emulated one, but will keep experimenting. Anyone familiar with emulating the system please feel free to jump in as this could be uglier than it looks.

Least I could do for ctmf.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:32 PM on March 15, 2011

Here's a downloadable image of the game, and the full manual.
posted by mwhybark at 9:32 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

mccarty.tim beat me... dangit.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:33 PM on March 15, 2011

d'oh! good work RolandOfEld!
posted by mwhybark at 9:33 PM on March 15, 2011

Was not doing a DOOOM observation! Just made a comment, really guys, normally this kind of thing is handled without emotional input, hopefully the can get it under control. But with the cascading problems, they may have too much on thier plates. I am not here to make enemys
posted by ionized at 9:34 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

LOL, oh how nice to have some internet hijinks laughter.
posted by mwhybark at 9:34 PM on March 15, 2011

Welcome back! Like I said, not trying to chase anybody off. Or not meaning to even if that's how it came out. Please accept my apologies.
posted by mwhybark at 9:36 PM on March 15, 2011

ionized, I think it's cool. Nerves are stretched or shot, everyone's jumpy and hypersensitive about panicking or minimizing. But I'm pretty sure you're OK, nobody's here to make enemies.
posted by KathrynT at 9:36 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

and I was not gonna comment agian, but I missed 5 hours from working in the garage, besides that I never comment
posted by ionized at 9:37 PM on March 15, 2011

ionized:

"too much on thier plates"

That is what started this whole mess...
posted by futz at 9:37 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Was not doing a DOOOM observation! Just made a comment, really guys, normally this kind of thing is handled without emotional input, hopefully the can get it under control. But with the cascading problems, they may have too much on thier plates. I am not here to make enemys

It sounds as though you have some actual experience with nuclear reactors. If so, it would be great to hear about your experiences.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:38 PM on March 15, 2011

Thanks KathrynT, I was not trying to be Doom, I Know the guys from the Navy that ran our nukes on the subs, I took care of the nuke weapons, cascading problems are dealt with with logic
posted by ionized at 9:41 PM on March 15, 2011

Honestly this thread has been remarkably free of the fightiness that characterized it early on. There is still probably some pro and anti nuke sentiment among most of the commenters but it seems like the public policy debate has been quenched by the seriousness of he current events.

On the other hand the current metatalk thread seems to be flaring up into yet another skirmish in the way between true believers.
posted by vuron at 9:45 PM on March 15, 2011

Kokuryu, had to know enough about them to keep the ship afloat (actually underwater). Why is everyone so fighty? I very seldom make comments!
posted by ionized at 9:47 PM on March 15, 2011

Like was said above, people are just very nervous. It's a scary thing, people are tense, it's hard to stay calm.
posted by infinitywaltz at 9:50 PM on March 15, 2011

64 comments in 24 hours in the MetaTalk thread is hardly "flaring" or "fighty".
posted by futz at 9:51 PM on March 15, 2011

Well, I honestly don't understand why a rational, thoughtful public policy discussion is considered misplaced here. People rarely take action without some kind of motivation to do so. This is a moment when we should be having a thoughtful discussion on the merits and dangers of nuclear power.
posted by serazin at 9:54 PM on March 15, 2011

Well, I got an Atari to boot and load the cassette image but it's been too long! I can't seem to get the emulator to actually load from the tape. Oh well, it's a worry bead thing for the next couple days I guess.
posted by mwhybark at 9:55 PM on March 15, 2011

Heh, I didn't even know there was a metatalk thread. I don't think people are being fighty, just some misscommunication going on (It's not the tides!)
posted by delmoi at 9:56 PM on March 15, 2011

I am sorry if I made anyone upset, I was a missle Technician on a US submarine, we worked with the Nuclear Technicians on the sub as far as the radiation goes and how we controlled our respective jobs. I learned way too much from those guys, and on a sub everyone needs to know everyones job. and once agian, not trying to make anyone mad, and yes I do know about (at least US navy nukes) nuke reactors to have a thought, I know a lot more about radiation and killing effects better, that was my job.
posted by ionized at 9:56 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

serazin: "Well, I honestly don't understand why a rational, thoughtful public policy discussion is considered misplaced here. People rarely take action without some kind of motivation to do so. This is a moment when we should be having a thoughtful discussion on the merits and dangers of nuclear power."

It shouldn't be, but upthread, you can see we didn't really have a rational, thoughtful discussion. Plus, there will sure be plenty of time for it later, and it'll be a doozy.
posted by mwhybark at 9:57 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Actually nuclear power is both good and bad, both life giving (for the good things) and very deadly. Nothing to get scared about, and actually if the can get the situation under control, really nothing to worry about.
posted by ionized at 10:02 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

serazin, see the MeTa thread before you get upset. The more you know...
posted by futz at 10:04 PM on March 15, 2011

I'm not sure any rational public policy decision can be made in the context of an ungoing crisis serazin. I'm not saying that public policy is or always should be fact based and rational but it seems when emotions are running particularly high the quality of analysis is going to be low. I know that my own decision making process gets impeded when I'm angry or upset I think that it's only reasonable to think that our collective reasoning gets impeded during times of great stress. Overreaction in the face of a crisis isn't helpful, witness the runs on pharmacies in the US to get potassium iodine pills.

That being said I do think this crisis will result in increased attention being paid to the possible ramifications of our energy policies at least for a short period of time. Personally I'm not even convinced that nukes are a good solution in a transition to a post fossil fuel economy. I'm just not sure that the debate if there is one will be the result of thoughtful deliberation.
posted by vuron at 10:04 PM on March 15, 2011

Good thoughts vuron, there will never be a good, thoughtful discussion on this. Too mant emotions involved.
posted by ionized at 10:07 PM on March 15, 2011

ionized: you really did nothing wrong. Everyone is just on edge. We're all just sharing the best information we can based on our pretty limited to nonexistent experience. If you have any knowledge you think would be interesting or relevant in this situation, I'm sure we'd all appreciate whatever you have to share.

serazin: No, it really isn't that moment. When the towers were falling it wasn't the time to have a thoughtful discussion on airport security and when New Orleans flooded it wasn't the time to have a thoughtful discussion on the merits of various flood control strategies. A very small group of people are risking their lives to try to control the situation, thousands are displaced, white smoke is pouring out of a reactor, everyone is scared, and no one really knows what to make of all this or what the next hour will bring. That is not an atmosphere to have a remotely thoughtful public policy discussion on the future of nuclear power. Good decisions are not made from fear, nor are we anywhere close to having the full story of what all happened here, and I think it's best that we give some time to understand the events since Friday before we rush to decide what this all means for the future of energy.
posted by zachlipton at 10:08 PM on March 15, 2011 [8 favorites]

On the other hand the current metatalk thread seems to be flaring up into yet another skirmish in the way between true believers.
posted by vuron

Not true.
posted by futz at 10:09 PM on March 15, 2011

I agree with floam, never have a rational discussion in an emergancy, good policy does not start when things are going wrong. With that said, Japan mefites, plz take care.
posted by ionized at 10:11 PM on March 15, 2011

As one of the "fighty" people upthread, I can only say that I gave up commenting when, after basically getting reactors 1 and 3 stabilized, reactor 2 went south. They have done so much with so little, under so much pressure, that was just too much for me. I was one of the one's saying "this could be really bad", and I wish more than anything I had been wrong...

But I'm certainly ready for the policy discussion that follows when this finally concludes.

I just hope that the heroic efforts of the people working at the plant are not, in the end, in vain.
posted by Windopaene at 10:13 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

serazin, see the MeTa thread before you get upset. The more you know...: Seen it.

People react to crisis. Sometimes poorly, sometimes well. Often regulatory policy is a response to bad shit being done and the public getting upset about it. One positive that came out of 9/11 was a resurgence of interest in disaster preparedness (of course our disaster prep in the US is still pathetic and based on individual household prep rather than meaningful community-wide preparation). Just because people (egged on by conservative media and government) became more xenophobic after 9/11 doesn't mean all responses to crisis will be racist. There's some kind of logical fallacy in that thinking.

I want a say about nuclear power. I don't think I have to be a nuclear physicist to deserve one. But most of the time people won't listen to me - no matter how many demonstrations I attend. This is a moment when people with an opinion on this matter will be heard. I am an adult capable of expressing that opinion without panic. You won't see me taking iodine pills right now. You will see me trying to get some meaning out of this horrible meaningless tragedy by working to change policy when the public view is open to thinking critically about this.
posted by serazin at 10:14 PM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

mwhybark: I'm trying the emulator thing too and getting nowhere. If you figure things out (or anyone else) please memail me. I'm worried the dumps we found (.CAS files) in my case aren't the right thing for running the game, but I grew up about 2+ PC generations past the Atari 800 (more really) so I'm on a steep learning curve.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:16 PM on March 15, 2011

I believe the people that are working that plant know what the dangers are, They are not going to let it meltdown if the can help it, they all know what is going to happen if it really goes south that far.
posted by ionized at 10:17 PM on March 15, 2011

BBC:
#
0510: Japan's worsening nuclear crisis will now be compared to the Chernobyl disaster, an editorial in Japan's Asahi Shimbun says. It adds that the unprecedented disaster will test the resilience of Japanese society.
posted by futz at 10:17 PM on March 15, 2011

I'll admit I probably looked at the comments following eriko's last post in that thread and overreacted. I think it's pretty easy to see the worst as well as the best in each other during these times and I probably have been unfair in judging any number of posters in all the earthquake threads. I'll try to keep from escalating tensions in the future.
posted by vuron at 10:17 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Fukushima Daiichi's going to get taught in every grad-level risk analysis and management class in engineering and public policy programs for the foreseeable forever... once we actually have a coherent narrative for it, which we don't yet. The crisis-communication version of that, when I was in school to be a wonk, was and probably still is Johnson and Johnson's PR response to the Tylenol poisoning incident in 1982. There are always going to be specific disasters in every professional field that students are told to take apart and analyze.

I am not an engineer, nor am I a public policy professor. I was an IT wonk, newsletter editor, secretary, and other stuff for engineering and public policy professors in a previous career incarnation. I worked for guys who taught classes with names like "Weapons of Mass Destruction" before that phrase was cool. They took their trade very seriously and they worked very hard to educate the next generation of engineers so that they don't grow up to make fatal mistakes under pressure. Whatever comes out of this, I believe that educational tradition will continue.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 10:19 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Sadly, it appears they really aren't in a position to not "let it meltdown". Too many failures at the same time. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but with 5 and 6 now having issues with the spent fuel, they are just being overwhelmed...
posted by Windopaene at 10:19 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

*group hug* now let's all get back to either monitoring the bleeding edge updates, watching penguins on youtube, or attempting to emulate dated hardware to run a nuclear simulation game that probably has a screen resolution of about 20x35 pixels.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:20 PM on March 15, 2011 [8 favorites]

serazin, I agree with you what you are trying to express. This thread is trying to avoid that for now. No hard feelings!
posted by futz at 10:21 PM on March 15, 2011

Metafilter: monitoring the bleeding edge updates, watching penguins on youtube, or attempting to emulate dated hardware to run a nuclear simulation game that probably has a screen resolution of about 20x35 pixels.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:22 PM on March 15, 2011 [10 favorites]

So we've cast off Maru for penguins? So sad.
posted by maudlin at 10:24 PM on March 15, 2011

RolandOfEld: "mwhybark: I'm trying the emulator thing too and getting nowhere. If you figure things out (or anyone else) please memail me. I'm worried the dumps we found (.CAS files) in my case aren't the right thing for running the game, but I grew up about 2+ PC generations past the Atari 800 (more really) so I'm on a steep learning curve."

will do. I'm pretty sure the .cas files are the correct images - the game shipped on a physical audio-tape cassette, as did a fair number of consumer programs for Ataris and Tandys and similar machines. What I'm lacking is the OS documentation; the game docs basically say turn on your computer, load the cassette data, and start the game. I can get the emulator to boot but can't figure out how to get the tape to load into the emulator's vast 64k of memory. Clearly a research problem for another time.
posted by mwhybark at 10:27 PM on March 15, 2011

This thread is trying to avoid that for now. No hard feelings!

No hard feelings futz, but no one is the boss of the thread! I came here because I am a metafilter community member, and I don't think there is a rule of how the content of this thread should run besides treating each other with respect and using thought and care in our words. It would trouble me if there was an arbitrary restriction of what is and isn't up for discussion in this thread. But I don't think there really is such a restriction.
posted by serazin at 10:30 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

BungaDunga: "Metafilter: monitoring the bleeding edge updates, watching penguins on youtube, or attempting to emulate dated hardware to run a nuclear simulation game that probably has a screen resolution of about 20x35 pixels."

[+] [+] [+]
posted by mwhybark at 10:30 PM on March 15, 2011

Who has an update on the water level at Unit 5? The IAEA report from a couple of hours ago said there was still ~2m of water above the fuel.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:31 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

Atari 800 Tutorial
posted by ob1quixote at 10:32 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

ob1quixote: "Atari 800 Tutorial."

Heh. Now I'll never get to sleep. Roland, if you were able to get your emulator up this may be of help.
posted by mwhybark at 10:35 PM on March 15, 2011

I didn't see it posted before, so forgive me if this is a double. NHK released this picture of Reactors 3 and 4, it really gives a good sense of the kind of devastation they're dealing with. Reactor 3 just looks utterly trashed.
posted by dialetheia at 10:38 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

serazin, I am fine with what you are saying. Although, this thread/post was started in order to avoid personal/activist opinions. Just a discussion of the facts. No one is doubting your passion.
posted by futz at 10:43 PM on March 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

mwhybark:Jesus, now I've seen everything. This is the computing parallel to "walking uphill to school for 8 miles, uphill, with no shoes, in the snow!". I still don't have the game working, but my emulator seems to be functional. Whatever.

Take-it-or-leave-it: The Atari 800 apparently became widely available around the same time that Fukushima I Reactor 4 came online.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:44 PM on March 15, 2011 [8 favorites]

Coincidence? I think not.
posted by scrowdid at 10:50 PM on March 15, 2011

Wow, from that wikipedia link:

On August 29, 2002, the government of Japan revealed that TEPCO was guilty of false reporting in routine governmental inspection of its nuclear plants and systematic concealment of plant safety incidents. All seventeen of its boiling-water reactors were shut down for inspection as a result. TEPCO's chairman Hiroshi Araki, President Nobuya Minami, Vice-President Toshiaki Enomoto, as well as the advisers Shō Nasu and Gaishi Hiraiwa stepped-down by September 30, 2002.[6] The utility "eventually admitted to two hundred occasions over more than two decades between 1977 and 2002, involving the submission of false technical data to authorities"

posted by delmoi at 10:51 PM on March 15, 2011

Couldn't get that video to work dialetheia, but I saw this on the same page:

Radioactivity forecast system down

A computer system that forecasts the spread of radioactivity has not been working due to malfunctioning monitoring posts around a troubled nuclear power plant in quake-hit Fukushima Prefecture.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency says it does not know when the system will be back in operation.

The system, called SPEEDI, predicts how radioactive substances will spread in case of radiation leakage from nuclear power plants, based on measurements taken at various locations, prevailing winds and other weather conditions.

SPEEDI data are intended to be used to draw up evacuation plans for residents around power plants in case of accidents.

[emphasis mine]

They really can't catch a break, can they?
posted by BungaDunga at 10:51 PM on March 15, 2011 [3 favorites]

Holy crap BungaDunga, that is ... wow. So many things just seem to be going wrong all at once. I hope they have other monitoring systems somehow.

I think the video might require Silverlight, apologies for that!
posted by dialetheia at 10:55 PM on March 15, 2011

The Guardian is reporting the following re the #4 fuel rod pool:

Kyodo says that workers the facility have been unable to pour water into the pool containing the spent fuel rods because of high radiation levels. Tepco, the plant's operators, are considering spraying the reactor with boric acid from overhead, warning: ''The possibility of recriticality is not zero".

Kyodo has just flashed up a statement that winds are preventing Self Defence Force helicopters from dousing it with water, citing an unnamed minister.

That's a hell of a phraseology: "the possibility of recriticality is not zero."
posted by zachlipton at 10:57 PM on March 15, 2011 [4 favorites]

Intent to minimize panic and yet avoid lying inevitably leads to tortured language. Examples abound in all press releases in the last 2 days.
posted by rainy at 11:01 PM on March 15, 2011 [7 favorites]

I don't think it's Silverlight- it's trying to load it with my oldish version of Windows Media Player. I blame WMP, I've never gotten it to work consistently (there's a reason YouTube streams using Flash...).

Note: watching documentaries on YouTube about Chernobyl might be the single most terrifying thing to do right now. Not recommended, though fascinating. I hate to think that, of course, in a year there will be documentaries made about this, and the imagery will probably be almost as terrifying.
posted by BungaDunga at 11:02 PM on March 15, 2011

There's a clearer version of that plant damage photo in this NYT summary, which, happily, seems to be reasonably accurate. There's hope for the media yet.

You can see the steam from what must be the fuel-storage pool on #3 and darker, kinda diesely-looking smoke from the similar area on #4, presumably from the fire or remnants.

But those are some trashed buildings.
posted by mwhybark at 11:07 PM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

Announcement of chernobyl accident on russian news program, two days after it happened. It's a very short clip. It's a striking contrast with the wealth of data available now. I was in school back then, in russia, and the coverage was so minimal I have only really heard about it many years after the fact.
posted by rainy at 11:09 PM on March 15, 2011 [5 favorites]

You can see the steam from what must be the fuel-storage pool on #3 and darker, kinda diesely-looking smoke from the similar area on #4, presumably from the fire or remnants.

One report (NYT?) said that lubricating oil from damaged machines was what was burning at plant #4.
posted by msalt at 11:24 PM on March 15, 2011

I just noticed that the NHK description seems to say that the picture is actually from yesterday:
"The photo, shot the day before from the northwestern side of the reactor"
posted by dialetheia at 11:28 PM on March 15, 2011

As the paper mwhybark linked to earlier says, once the spent fuel assemblies are no longer covered by water, being in the same building for an hour means death. If TEPCO has been trying to refill the ponds I expect they've either been using cooling systems in the building or, once those failed, ad hoc methods (fire hoses) where personnel would only be allowed a few minutes of exposure before having to leave the plant for good. That's a lot of people.
posted by zippy at 11:48 PM on March 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Digging around in the literature informs me that there were at least two sets of comprehensive light-water reactor severe fuel rod damage tests going on in the 1980s into the 1990s-- CORA, headquartered at Karlsruhe in then-West Germany, and FLHT in the United States. Both of these testing programs ran a bunch of "so what happens if it runs out of coolant, so what happens to the fuel rod cladding, etc." tests in extreme failure conditions in test reactors.

FLHT-6 was supposed to be the US BWR fuel rod failure test, but my reading says it was cancelled (I don't know why). CORA-33 is the German test on "what happens when the core goes dry." People who are more engineering-based than I am may want to poke and prod about Google Scholar for the literature produced by these two entities; there seems to be enough of it, although some of it is PWR-oriented and not about BWRs. (I've seen mentions of simulations that effectively model GE BWR-3 Mk. I setups, too, from the same time period, but nothing about what results those simulations yielded.)
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 12:02 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

A brief commentary on @arcvac, science journalism, PR flacks, and the nuclear industry. @arclight has just been tweeting a bit and has commented slightly, very much in the most positive way, on his current situation. I swear I'm not generally an angry person, but the way his superiors have gagged him (and that's what an order to shut up is, even if he say it's not a gag) leaves me fuming. From the very beginning, he was a phenomenal independent voice of reason and scientific information at a time when the networks were cutting to their meteorologists to explain the workings of a nuclear reactor. He was like us in this thread: sharing his knowledge to work out what we could about all this as the situation evolved. Arclight did his best to calm readers about unrealistic fears and he tried to share factual information about the realistic ones when things changed.

And then the bosses woke up:

"I've been told to cease & desist pending results of this morning's meeting with chain of command. Thank all of you for support & attention."
"Job is secure. Sometimes faith in management is not misplaced. However, communication will be handled by professionals from now on."

Over the past few days, we've all been "handled" more than enough by professional communicators. The Fukushima incident has certainly made me more fearful of nuclear power, but it has been these PR flacks and their surrogate spinners that have caused me to severely lose any trust in the companies that design and operate nuclear facilities. I can get over that fear a lot more easily than the industry can possibly repair that loss of trust. The anti-nuke groups have certainly been taking advantage of this incident too, but muzzling a scientist who was providing incredibly helpful information in a crisis is far worse.

So three cheers to @arclight for his yeoman's work, and a giant raspberry to those who decided that instead of rational scientific discourse, we should get our information from this guy (maker of this handy pro-nuke propaganda chart for kids) and this industry shill or even these shills who had the absolute gall to claim at 10AM JST on Wednesday (by which time both the #3 and #4 reactors had exhibited plumes of smoke and a fire, respectively, within a space of several hours and radiation levels were spiking) that "the situation is clearly (but slowly) stabilising."

.
posted by zachlipton at 12:24 AM on March 16, 2011 [34 favorites]

NHK World just reported that GE is sending more generators to Fukushima to supply power; they said they have the generators in Florida ready to ship.

Also, BBC: Fukushima is expecting an incoming shipment of boric acid from South Korea "after its own supplies were largely used up at the Fukushima nuclear power plant," and "A helicopter used to pour water over one of the reactors has taken off, Japanese TV reports."
posted by dialetheia at 12:34 AM on March 16, 2011

Arclight actually tried to resign. He says it was "refused."
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 12:37 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

...Emperor Akihito is addressing the nation, per Twitter.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 12:40 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Crossposted from other thread in case it's useful:
"The Hindo City background radiation US mirror has an archive started if you wan't to try and track peaks with explosions. I haven't gotten around to editing the presentation yet, just got the idea to save archive images before going to bed this morning.
posted by zengargoyle at 12:36 AM on March 16 [+] [!]"
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:43 AM on March 16, 2011

@arclight said "People with massive fiduciary responsibility cannot afford an amateur like me misspeaking or having my goodwill abused."

The keywords (whether or not intended) are "massive fiduciary responsibility", which seems to mean a shit-load of money. The unpleasant connotation is that decisions are being made on a purely financial basis, and not based on saving lives. A few direct losses of lives a company could be held financially responsible for; an X% increase in cancer throughout X% of Japan probably not.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:48 AM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

Japanese reporter Hiroko Tabuchi tweets that Akihito asks quake/ tsunami/ etc. victims to never lose hope and to take care of their health.

He says he is deeply worried, and that the situation at Fukushima seems unpredictable. He is praying for the people's safety. That seems to be all the people on Twitter know about it; I missed the live feed, I suspect.

People are saying that they have never actually heard Akihito address the people before, and that this is basically something that only happens in cases of war or severe shit hitting the fan. I guess we now know how badly the shit has to go down before the Emperor arrives.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 12:52 AM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

I think @arclight's point there was basically "my bosses are worried that I'll say something that pisses off the wrong people and my company will be harmed." As I understand it, he works for a consulting firm, so presumably the business's clients are the nuclear industry. I guess the fear is that the clients would dry up as a result of his efforts this weekend. Probably not an irrational fear to say the least, but a disturbing one with a very unfortunate result nevertheless.
posted by zachlipton at 12:59 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Nuke geek pal said the other day that he was unsurprised at possible astroturfing by Siemens PR via Josef Oehmen, and that part of his early education in nuclear engineering involved being explicitly told that the nuclear power industry's PR machine is incredibly quick to take offense, leap to the barricades, and the like.

That should, really, surprise absolutely no one, regardless of the particular stance or utter lack thereof one might hold towards nuclear power.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 1:04 AM on March 16, 2011 [9 favorites]

While I wish the corporation he works for would let him speak freely, I'm having a hard time believing his Tweets were going to save people's lives.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:07 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

While I wish the corporation he works for would let him speak freely, I'm having a hard time believing his Tweets were going to save people's lives.

If I gave that impression, I'm sorry and I certainly didn't mean to. His tweets weren't going to save any more lives than the discussion we're having in this thread, but like this thread, they were educating a lot of people at a time when we were all clueless about this. He is and was a very helpful voice in a time of chaos, not a saint :)
posted by zachlipton at 1:14 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I beleive that @arclight works for Fauske & Associates, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidery of Westinghouse Electric Company which now calls itself Westinghouse Nuclear.
Here is the board of Directors.
Vice President Shigenori Shiga is also Executive Vice President of the Toshiba Power Systems
CFO Masayoshi Hirata also has history with Toshiba
Toshiba and Fukushima Daiichi ...Join the dotsdots together
posted by adamvasco at 1:18 AM on March 16, 2011 [8 favorites]

While I wish the corporation he works for would let him speak freely, I'm having a hard time believing his Tweets were going to save people's lives.

If his analysis prompted you to get out of an ever-growing exclusion zone before the company and authorities were prepared to acknolwedge things weren't going as happily as they liked, then that will save lives.

Conversely, if someone is level-headed, trust-worthy, and telling you not to panic, persuading people not to stampede when they don't need to can save lives.

The official word from a company with an apparently well-documented history of "making shit up" with regards to the safety of its plant isn't something that inspires confidence in either of the two scenarios outlined.
posted by rodgerd at 1:18 AM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

i did indeed join the dots up
posted by adamvasco at 1:21 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Interesting adamvasco. Thanks for connecting the dots. I had no idea Fauske & Associates is part of Westinghouse. I can certainly see why a "world leader in nuclear and chemical process safety" (phrase appears on every page of their website) would be freaking out a bit right now and would want to shut down any voices not giving the industry party line.
posted by zachlipton at 1:30 AM on March 16, 2011

metafilter: i did indeed join the dots up
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 1:32 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Reuters Timeline 1946 hrs. Fri. March 11th. - 1606 hrs. Wed March 16th. All times Japanese local.
posted by adamvasco at 1:36 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

...Emperor Akihito is addressing the nation, per Twitter.

Wow, he's really going with the times, isn't he?
posted by sour cream at 1:59 AM on March 16, 2011

NHK says they have aborted the helicopter plan.

Also, Edano is holding a press conference now, but he isn't saying much.
posted by Chuckles at 2:11 AM on March 16, 2011

Yeah, due to unnamed safety reasons. Radiation, perhaps? I can understand why some people don't think they're doing a good enough good regarding information, especially after reading up on TEPCO's history.
posted by Soupisgoodfood at 2:40 AM on March 16, 2011

Reuters: Q+A: What do latest events at Japan nuclear power plant mean? posted Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:26am EDT.
posted by ob1quixote at 2:44 AM on March 16, 2011

Edano/NHK: Helicopter water drop called off; too much radiation at moment. Via Matt Alt on Twitter
posted by nickyskye at 3:43 AM on March 16, 2011

According to @hayano, rad levels in Fukushima City currently 20 microSv/h. (100x normal, but equal to one chest x-ray every 2 hours.)
posted by nickyskye at 3:54 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

NHK has announced the following:

In an unprecidented situation never seen before in its history, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, facing an obviously difficult and frustrating situation, streched out his leg today and hit the reset button with his big toe.



The Prime Minister was on the defensive after his controversial move, citing the extreme difficulty of the current situation.



"I was facing a whole series of unprecidented difficulties. Problems that you would expect to gradually improve after the earthquake and tsunami kept getting progressively worse.  I made my decision, based on what I thought would be best for the Japanese people. We are making all possible efforts to restore from an earlier save point, just as soon as possible."



 I had turned my back for awhile to talk with (LDP Spokesperson) Yuriko Koike, only to have this happen. It was like she was trying to distract me, frankly," Kan announced.



Ms. Koike vigorously denied the Prime Minister's claims at a press conference today, but NHK has obtained video which appears to show LDP Leader Sadakazu Tanigaki adjusting settings on the difficulty control screen, while the Prime Minister's back was turned. 



Mr. Tanigaki's office had no immediate comment.

posted by markkraft at 4:42 AM on March 16, 2011 [8 favorites]

streched out his leg today and hit the reset button with his big toe.
..."I had turned my back for awhile to talk with (LDP Spokesperson) Yuriko Koike, only to have this happen."

I don't understand this at all. Could someone translate the translation for me? What happened exactly?
posted by torticat at 4:52 AM on March 16, 2011

I don't understand this at all. Could someone translate the translation for me? What happened exactly?
posted by torticat at 8:52 PM on March 16 [+] [!]

It appears to be a joke that'd be super funny in several other circumstances, and also better appreciated in the original Japanese.
posted by gc at 4:55 AM on March 16, 2011

eriko: And I still stand by this statement -- even if all four reactors involve undergo complete melting of the core, the tsunami will have killed, hurt, and caused financial harm to vastly more people than these reactors will.

Well, that is a bit of an understatement. The tsunami killed quite a lot of people. The current number of casualties from nuclear-specific hazards at the station is quite a lot lower, I believe it's close or equal to zero so far if you only count radiation. Explosions and fires are not exactly unique to the nuclear power stations.

The most likely outcome is still that things will remain mostly contained, that the final impact on human health will be "very low". It's unfortunately far from being certain that this will be the case, and the worst case is horrifying, but "very low" is still the most likely according to official statements and in my own unimportant opinion. If a core completely melts down for example, odds are better than even (though nobody seems to know by precisely how much) that it will not melt through even the first layer of primary containment. That risk is bad enough that it should be avoided if possible. But even in the worst case it is still not nearly so destructive as the tsunami, quite obviously. All the media focus (and my own) is on the nuclear disaster now precisely because of the concentrated and continued uncertainty which draws attention, not because it's the more important.

If they have "aborted the helicopter plan", I take that as a good sign, meaning that they have some other plan that entails less risk, or at least that the need for more water is not so urgent as to require risking the life of a pilot.
posted by sfenders at 4:59 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Seconding relief at the cancellation of anything to do with helicopters over these particular nuclear plants just now or anytime soon. An idea that might have been inspired by retired members of the monsters-in-a-suit division of Toho. There's a huge difference between forest fires and the highly lethal and unpredictable Fukushima plant.
posted by nj_subgenius at 5:09 AM on March 16, 2011

But even in the worst case it is still not nearly so destructive as the tsunami, quite obviously.

Quite possible, but I think the distinction made by many people is that the earthquake/tsunami are natural disasters and there is nothing one can do to prevent an earthquake/tsunami. However, it is quite possible to prevent nuclear meltdown scenarios, which are man-made, and therefore more attention is given to that.
posted by sour cream at 5:12 AM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

...and by highly lethal, I suppose I mean within a 100 meters proximity.
posted by nj_subgenius at 5:12 AM on March 16, 2011

If they have "aborted the helicopter plan", I take that as a good sign, meaning that they have some other plan that entails less risk, or at least that the need for more water is not so urgent as to require risking the life of a pilot.

Not sure where your logic is here. Clearly it was deemed too dangerous to the helicopter crew. Iirc, the helicopter crew who flew firefighting missions over Chernobyl were among the first to perish.

We have yet to see a 'plan' beyond the helicopter water-drop afaik atm
posted by gen at 5:18 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

NHK says they aborted the helicopter plan because the Self-Defence Forces would be exposed to too much radiation (their limit is 50 mSv; the limit for people working at the site was increased yesterday to 250 mSv). No reports of another plan.

New TEPCO radiation figures up to 3:50 pm today.

Graph of radiation readings at Fukushima Daiichi. I think this incorporates the latest data. I do not like this pattern of large spikes and slowly diminishing radiation every several hours.

Graph of radiation readings in Fukushima city. 20 microSv/hr is not terribly high -- 1 flight from New York to Tokyo every 10 hours? -- but it's 80 km away. (Meanwhile there are other places about that far from the reactor that are showing readings 20 times lower, so wind direction is a big factor here.
posted by Jeanne at 5:22 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Japanese police have been asked to send watercannon truck to hose down the nuclear plant, Japan's broadcaster NHK is reporting, according to AFP. - BBC reporting this now. Desperate stuff, surely?
posted by tomcosgrave at 5:25 AM on March 16, 2011

If they have "aborted the helicopter plan", I take that as a good sign, meaning that they have some other plan

Then you are more optimistic than I am, they've been vacillating on the helicopter plan for hours now. Their problems just seem to keep multiplying as their options dwindle, and they seem to be running out of resources (running out of boric acid, limited electricity, limited manpower, can't ever seem to get water in fast enough). I hope that the international community is able to start providing some resources to help with this situation SOON, and I'm really surprised that the response has taken this long.

The part that scares the hell out of me is that the country is in a very poor position to deal with any magnitude of accident that requires any additional evacuations, with the evacuation planning system dysfunctioning and roads in such awful shape after the quake. I am an atheist born and raised, but I am pretty much praying for Japan right now. I don't know what else to say. I sincerely wish I had your confidence in the situation.

But even in the worst case it is still not nearly so destructive as the tsunami, quite obviously.

I don't understand why this argument is even relevant. This situation has the capacity to inflict a great deal of additional suffering on a country that has is still going through one of the most harrowing natural disasters in history. It doesn't seem unreasonable to worry about that.
posted by dialetheia at 5:33 AM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

I was thinking about one of those airport firefighting trucks that are reinforced against explosions, etc. Or maybe some kind of quickly purpose-built firefighting vehicle that has a big thick steel barrier in front?
posted by gen at 5:33 AM on March 16, 2011

Is it wrong to assume that people would have to be rotated out of there very soon after getting on station? I envisage a mad relay race of transports between a safer distance and the water cannon(s), not only rotating firefighting personnel, but drivers to boot. And how soon might the transports themselves have before they're too badly contaminated to use anymore, meaning more spare clean transports, vehicle/firefighter decontamination equipment? Sorry to sound like a pesky kid with annoying questions, but I can't even speculate answers.
posted by nj_subgenius at 5:35 AM on March 16, 2011

I can't imagine that anyone who is fighting the fire will expect to survive this.
posted by gen at 5:37 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Well... that's what they did in Chernobyl when they were cleaning up massively radioactive graphite. Didn't do any of the poor soldiers ordered to do it any good, but they were dealing with much, much higher radiation at that point (I think. I hope. They were running in 45 second relays up to the roof, scooping up some graphite and tossing it). youtube "biosoldiers", I got it from upthread a ways.

I'd imagine they rotate as much as they can, but at a certain point they're going to run out of people and have to have people go in again. gen: I haven't seen radiation levels recently near the reactors that are bad enough to kill? Not that it'll be healthy at all for anyone there.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:42 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I hope that the international community is able to start providing some resources to help with this situation SOON, and I'm really surprised that the response has taken this long.

I know, I keep wondering about this too.

At least partially answering my related question above, the Washingon Post reports:

"Wednesday morning, 33 nuclear disaster experts from the U.S. Department of Energy arrived in Japan with 17,000 pounds of gear to help with the crisis."

Wonder what the 'gear' consists of.
posted by torticat at 5:42 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

You may be right, gen, but it's hard to imagine that the firefighters would just bravely accept the outcome of certain, horrible death from radiation sickness and get cracking on it till they're literally dead on their feet.
posted by nj_subgenius at 5:43 AM on March 16, 2011

Not sure where your logic is here. Clearly it was deemed too dangerous to the helicopter crew.

It gives us some idea of their idea of the risk of not adding water right now, assuming they have no other means to do so. It is less than the risk of the helicopter flight going awry.
posted by sfenders at 5:44 AM on March 16, 2011

Last Defense at Troubled Reactors: 50 Japanese Workers

They are the faceless 50, the unnamed operators who stayed behind. They have volunteered, or been assigned, to pump seawater on dangerously exposed nuclear fuel, already thought to be partly melting and spewing radioactive material, to prevent full meltdowns that could throw thousands of tons of radioactive dust high into the air and imperil millions of their compatriots.
...
Nuclear reactor operators say that their profession is typified by the same kind of esprit de corps found among firefighters and elite military units. Lunchroom conversations at reactors frequently turn to what operators would do in a severe emergency.

The consensus is always that they would warn their families to flee before staying at their posts to the end, said Michael Friedlander, a former senior operator at three American power plants for a total of 13 years.

"You’re certainly worried about the health and safety of your family, but you have an obligation to stay at the facility," he said. "There is a sense of loyalty and camaraderie when you’ve trained with guys, you’ve done shifts with them for years."

posted by yeoz at 5:46 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Is it wrong to assume that people would have to be rotated out of there very soon after getting on station?

The problem, nj_subgenius, is that there aren't many people who are trained to do the necessary work:

“If they exceed a certain amount, they can’t go back in for a day or a week or longer,” said Dr. Lew Pepper, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health who has studied the effects of radiation on nuclear weapons workers. And the pool of available replacements is finite, he said: “What do you do? You don’t have a lot of people who can do this work.”

...But Arnold Gundersen, a consultant who worked in American plants nearly identical to the stricken Japanese ones, said it was likely that the company was calling in retirees and workers from unaffected plants for help. And perhaps for sacrifice, as well. “They may also be asking for people to volunteer to receive additional exposure,” he said.
posted by mediareport at 5:47 AM on March 16, 2011

Out of curiosity, what is the best radioactive-resistant safety gear available for those working around highly radioactive substances? Does it make much of a difference, under the circumstances, or is such gear pretty much useless against the wide variety of radiation being faced?
posted by markkraft at 5:55 AM on March 16, 2011

You may be right, gen, but it's hard to imagine that the firefighters would just bravely accept the outcome of certain, horrible death from radiation sickness and get cracking on it till they're literally dead on their feet.

Firefighters. That's why they call them 'Heroes'.
posted by mikelieman at 5:58 AM on March 16, 2011

I am amazed and humbled by the bravery of the workers at the nuclear plant.

But it's hard to imagine someone being effective at physical labor once they've reached the level of radiation poisoning.

They can push up the limit of total radiation exposure some more, but they just really need more people. (Which, granted, isn't an easy thing.)
posted by Jeanne at 6:02 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't know if it's available to the workers but Demron was mention earlier in the thread. Certainly easier than wearing lead.
posted by Procloeon at 6:05 AM on March 16, 2011

Demron fabric looks pretty good. I wonder if they have this at the fire departments near our local nuke plant.
posted by maniabug at 6:11 AM on March 16, 2011

I think the career firefighters must be badly stretched and exhausted with search/rescue/recovery. The Japanese army, ~150,000 strong, might be a better choice (?), though they're probably on the same mission as firefighters. I doubt career firefighters know much better than soldiers how to fight something like this without guidance from the Fukushima plane, and I'd leave the search/rescue/etc to firefighters who are highly trained. That is, if I were trapped under a building.
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:11 AM on March 16, 2011

Argg, I'm busted for not previewing. Different link though.
posted by maniabug at 6:12 AM on March 16, 2011

plane=plant.
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:12 AM on March 16, 2011

Demron seems to be good at blocking alpha and beta particles and okay at blocking "low-intensity" gamma rays. However it's really hard to determine from what we've been given what sort and amount of exposure these guys are getting much less the level of shielding they are working with.

I think the other thing they are dealing with is that the steam from the boiling water is almost certainly carrying radioactive particles. I think that means that you'd need to be wearing fully enclosed oxygen supplies. Combined with the high ambient temperatures present in the cooling pool rooms and surrounding area and I can definitely imagine your ability to work is severely curtailed.

Steam tunnels, boilers, etc can be frightening and unbearably uncomfortable to work around during relatively good conditions, I can't even imagine working in them while wearing a heavy ass suit and being concerned about radiation exposure. These guys are definitely heroes for valiantly fighting the good fight in this crisis.
posted by vuron at 6:16 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

The plan according to NHK is now for a police squad to go in with a water cannon powerful enough to deliver a high-pressure stream of water from a safe distance. They're planning to start that in the early morning.
posted by Jeanne at 6:18 AM on March 16, 2011

They're planning to start that in the early morning.

I hope they can afford to wait that long.
posted by gen at 6:19 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Good for the water cannon, I brought up the idea of a firefighting boat upthread but obviously have no idea about the logistics of getting one to the scene and if it would be able to target the reactor pool from the ocean.

Wikipedia seems to suggest that a riot cannon can hold 2000 gallons and deliver it at 250 gallons per minute. Hopefully there is a way to continuously feed the cannon via water pumps.
posted by vuron at 6:25 AM on March 16, 2011

Thank you Jeanne.
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:27 AM on March 16, 2011

Reuters Timeline 1946 hrs. Fri. March 11th. - 1606 hrs. Wed March 16th. All times Japanese local.

Here's a non-yahoo link of that timeline. Yahoo's news links often end up being no good after a year or so. The timeline also seems to be getting updated.
posted by cashman at 6:32 AM on March 16, 2011

I did a search and found a very recent press release online:

March 16, 2011 - MIAMI - With Japanese authorities warning that the population immediately surrounding the nuclear plant in Northern Japan faces serious health risks from radiation leaks, Ronald DeMeo, M.D., president with Radiation Shield Technologies (RST), is issuing a global call-to-action to provide critical nuclear protection gear and counter-measures to protect first responders and the public.



"The radiation has surged to more than six times the legal limit, reaching levels that will clearly impact the human body, and I'm shocked to see the medical professionals and other first responders wearing cotton scrubs that provide little or no protection from the harmful gamma rays and other threats," said Dr. DeMeo . . . "The Japanese government and other authorities should learn about and use these new technologies to protect first responders and the public." . . . 



Dr. DeMeo, the noted surgeon and entrepreneur who invented Demron, is offering to donate several of his company's patented Demron Full Body Suits - currently the only gear on the market that provides total chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) protection from all types of threats as well as heat stress. However, a massive deployment of Demron is needed, he said. "In addition, all manufacturers of any other gear that provides gamma protection should step up and donate whatever they can. During this crisis, every bit of help is needed."



The Demron armor is currently deployed throughout the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and the United States. The technologies are used globally by members of the military, first responders, HAZMAT teams, police and fire-rescue personnel and health care professionals, among others. The New York City Fire Department (FDNY) recently selected it to help improve firefighter safety. However, the suits are not yet being used by emergency teams in Japan.



The cool, lightweight, flexible full-body suits are made of the only impermeable CBRN fabric that permits heat exchange and enables the wearer to be cooled externally, enhancing athletic performance and survivability. In addition to the suit, RST's personal-protection line includes high-energy anti-nuclear ballistic blankets and ballistic vests. . . 

RST, with headquarters and manufacturing facilities in Miami, is a global leader in the research, development and production of multi-hazard personal-protection performance enhancement systems. Visit www.radshield.com or call (866) 7DEMRON or (866) 733-6766.

posted by markkraft at 6:34 AM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

Pepsi Cherenkov Radiation Blue?
posted by cashman at 6:40 AM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

Nuka-Cola Blue.
posted by SPUTNIK at 6:42 AM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

If anyone with a Mac is still having trouble getting SCRAM to run, get this emulator:

http://www.max-emulators.com/atari_8bit_mac.php

Put the system ROMs in the OS folder, and the game files in the EXE folder.

Load up the emulator, load the cassette image using the control panel. Enable BASIC, so the emulator doesn't boot into the notepad.

Then when it boots up type:

CLOAD

wait. It will make a buzzing noise, then return READY. To start the game, type:

RUN

I don't understand how the storage pool contingencies weren't picked up earlier amidst all the dismissive reporting and expert blogging that a combustion event leading to a more widespread contamination wasn't possible based on the core configurations. It became obvious to me just reading up on the GE BWR designs. Chernobyl tunnel vision?
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:51 AM on March 16, 2011 [7 favorites]

It's probably already linked upthread, but the MIT Nuclear Engineering blog has some great technically-oriented information on the situation and was updated fairly recently.
posted by exogenous at 6:52 AM on March 16, 2011

(You need to restart the emulator after enabling BASIC and "inserting the tape")
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:53 AM on March 16, 2011

vuron writes "Wikipedia seems to suggest that a riot cannon can hold 2000 gallons and deliver it at 250 gallons per minute. Hopefully there is a way to continuously feed the cannon via water pumps."

Pretty well any water truck (Or I'd guess firefighting pumper) is going to be able to toss a stinger (IE: a hose with a wire cage around it large enough to prevent debris from clogging the intake) into the ocean and supply water. Depending on he head you'll need 10-20 horsepower and somewheres around a 2-3" pump and hoses for 250GPM. I was messing around a few days ago with this and apparently 250GPM isn't much as fire fighting equipment goes. A run of the mill pumper is going to have a throughput of 1250+GPM from an unpressurized source and more if the source is a hydrant.
posted by Mitheral at 6:53 AM on March 16, 2011

Found a flash-based sim for those too lazy to go the emulator route...
posted by mikelieman at 6:57 AM on March 16, 2011

OK, looks like a water cannon can reliably deliver a water stream between 20 and 60 meters. Given that rough distance, might this bring exposure down below 250 mSv? I do not trust my math, so, anyone?
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:57 AM on March 16, 2011

...using the latest readings Jeanne linked to...
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:59 AM on March 16, 2011

reactor 3 looks in a really bad state in the latest photos from digitalglobe
posted by pixie at 7:05 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Hopefully they can drive up the water cannon, park it and leave it idling while continously pumping instead of making someone stay in it. Presumably you'd still need to fill up the tanks with diesel? in order to keep the cannon operating but that seems like it would reduce the need for operators to remain on location all the time.

The vehicle itself would probably be salvaged after extended duty but I think that's a loss anyone would be willing to make at the current time.
posted by vuron at 7:06 AM on March 16, 2011

Radioactivity forecast system down

NARAC is one of the groups on the line when we man up the Emergency Command Centers. Someone from there is on the conference call 24/7, along with command/control personnel, plant engineering experts, emergency response resources, monitoring teams [me], radiological assessment experts, and public relations staff (to field questions from the press, but more importantly to keep affected area public officials in the loop with technical info, something that seems to be lacking in Japan at the moment)

Puget Sound ECC is manned, as is Pearl Harbor's ECC and Norfolk's ECC and there is an open line to 7th Fleet. The Japanese have the best forecasting data in the world right now.
posted by ctmf at 7:06 AM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

NARAC
posted by ctmf at 7:07 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Chernobyl 25 Years Later Becomes Japan’s Lesson on Meltdown

Chernobyl had four reactors and the first started generating power in 1977. The accident was caused by overheating at reactor number four, whose commissioning had been completed in December 1983, according to the EBRD.

The blasts caused the containment roof to cave in and send radioactive debris, including pieces of rods spewing into the air and destroying a nearby forest. After the accident, nuclear power production resumed at the site in October 1986 until a decade ago, the EBRD said.

Did you know that they re-started energy production at the Chernobyl site 3 years after the catastrophe until 2000? Wow.
posted by gen at 7:10 AM on March 16, 2011

It seems like they should be able to build something with pipes and pumps to drive a lot of water onto the site, kind of like those big farm sprinkler things. That way they wouldn't have to be so close.

Also why water at this point, if the reactor is a loss, couldn't they just put sand, lead, boric acid powder on top of the slag heap and let the stuff melt into it and keep the reaction sub critical. Sure it would be a hell of a mess, but wouldn't it basically be contained to a small location instead of the potential open pit uncontrolled nuclear reactor thing we're seeing now?
posted by humanfont at 7:12 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Rachel Maddow: 'What is a meltdown?' [video | 13:43]. A very good primer for us, laypersons.
posted by ericb at 7:15 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Looks like they figured out what that steam coming from #3 was:

13.56: The spent fuel pool at Fukushima's No 3 reactor has heated up and is emitting steam amid reports the fuel rods had become exposed, the Kyodo news agency has reported.

posted by yeoz at 7:16 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Also why water at this point, if the reactor is a loss, couldn't they just put sand, lead, boric acid powder on top

I suspect most of those items would require closer physical contact (and exposure to radiation) than water, which can be sprayed from a distance or sent through the existing pipes.
posted by nomisxid at 7:22 AM on March 16, 2011

Also, it seems like while that might help to contain radiation (rather than releasing steam containing radioactive particles) it might not be as effective to cool the reactor as heat wouldn't be exchanged? So it seems closer to a sarcophagus, which apparently is the "we give up" option.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:25 AM on March 16, 2011

Found a flash-based sim for those too lazy to go the emulator route...

Thanks! At this stage in the game I have opted to route all requests about my progress via my PR agency. However I would like to point out that my control room and cooling towers are still functioning normally.
posted by rongorongo at 7:30 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

The sarcophagus option is almost certainly in the back of people's minds. I think they want to exhaust every other short-term solution to the problem before getting into that set of options. The ability of the Soviets to throw thousands of conscripts and workers largely unaware of the consequences into the breech in a desperate attempt to stave off disaster isn't necessarily something that exists in Japan. If we get into those style solutions I think the worst case scenario has undoubtedly come true.
posted by vuron at 7:32 AM on March 16, 2011

I can't do better than "adequate" on this game. What's the deal? How do you deal with the first couple of days?
posted by geoff. at 7:34 AM on March 16, 2011

I didn't see this in here yesterday, but given the subtopic about monitoring, it seems appropriate.

via BoingBoing, 東北関東大震災・非公式・放射性物質モニタリングポストMAP / Japan quake radioactive material monitoring post MAP.

Xeni appears to have mistakenly characterized the map, which is a Google Maps collection of geo-located links, as representing '"unofficial" radiation monitoring sites,' but as near as I can tell, the links represent published near-realtime data from professionally-maintained sources. I could be wrong about that, but randomly clicking on about six did not seem to produce a homebrew monitor.
posted by mwhybark at 7:34 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

couldn't they just put sand, lead, boric acid powder on top

The goal right now is to cool down the mess so as to stop the reaction. sand and lead is not going to do that. they need a way to cool the whole reactor. Water is the best coolant right now.
posted by gen at 7:37 AM on March 16, 2011

I can't do better than "adequate" on this game. What's the deal? How do you deal with the first couple of days?

The only way to win...
posted by atrazine at 7:38 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

"but it's hard to imagine that the firefighters would just bravely accept the outcome of certain, horrible death from radiation sickness and get cracking on it till they're literally dead on their feet."

I don't see how it's hard to imagine that a country that could produce men (and women) brave enough to do things like these wouldn't produce people willing to stand by their post when disaster strikes.

Let me be brutally honest, I'm not judging anyone or putting my rubber stamp on any WWII era decisions; I'm just saying that those things must have took an immense amount of courage.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:44 AM on March 16, 2011

Okay this is a real derail: the key to the game is ramp up quickly and use small (5-6%) amounts of emergency coolant right around when things begin to max out, whatever you do, never decrease the control rods -- use coolant instead. I got my average power output to 1586 MW and was notified that rates will drop, which is a perverse incentive system. In any case, JAPAN CALL ME I KNOW HOW TO DO THIS.
posted by geoff. at 7:50 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Oh, man. Satellite imagery, from 3/16
http://www.digitalglobe.com/downloads/featured_images/japan_earthquaketsu_fukushima_daiichi2_march16_2011_dg.jpg
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:08 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

God, what a fucking mess.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:09 AM on March 16, 2011

Ack, pixie already linked it.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:09 AM on March 16, 2011

The lead author on that paper I linked to upthread which contains comprehensive examination of fuel-pool storage issues is this guy, Robert Alvarez.

Excerpts from bio on that page:

"Between 1993 and 1999, Mr. Alvarez served as a Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment. ... In 1994 and 1995, Bob led teams in North Korea to establish control of nuclear weapons materials ...

Prior to joining the DOE, Mr. Alvarez served for five years as a Senior Investigator for the U. S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, chaired by Senator John Glenn, and as one of the Senate’s primary staff experts on the U.S. nuclear weapons program. ... He helped organize a successful lawsuit on behalf of the family of Karen Silkwood, a nuclear worker and active union member who was killed under mysterious circumstances in 1974."

He's been blogging on Fukushima, scroll down to see his entries.

The most notable one is here:

Meltdowns Grow More Likely at the Fukushima Reactors, posted March 13, a day before the March 14 revelation of fuel-pool issues at #4, which started us looking at fuel-pool issues in general.

In that post, he notes,

"The boiling-water reactors at Fukushima — 40 years old and designed by General Electric — have spent fuel pools several stories above ground adjacent to the top of the reactor. The hydrogen explosion may have blown off the roof covering the pool, as it's not under containment. The pool requires water circulation to remove decay heat. If this doesn't happen, the water will evaporate and possibly boil off. If a pool wall or support is compromised, then drainage is a concern. Once the water drops to around 5-6 feet above the assemblies, dose rates could be life-threatening near the reactor building. If significant drainage occurs, after several hours the zirconium cladding around the irradiated uranium could ignite."

He goes on to refer to the study and discuss the regulatory impact in the US, which amounted to further discussion of the issue.

This specific post shows evidence of some traction on Twitter.

Subsequent posts by him have mentioned pool concerns once, but only glancingly.
posted by mwhybark at 8:09 AM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Popular Ethics (March 13): "On a completely different note, I'm hoping that someone reports the status of the spent fuel pools which were under the now-exploded roofs."

Popular Ethics then links to the same study I did, but hosted at a different location.
posted by mwhybark at 8:15 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Wow. Why did they think putting the cooling pools for spent fuel on the roof was a good idea? And not just on the roof, but right next to the working reactor. Seems like that would be the most vulnerable place to locate it.

Anyone know if there was an actual safety reason for that design, or was it driven by cost or something?

It seems like, right, we have a bomb-making factory, and we need somewhere to store our faulty bombs, so we'll put them right next to each other so if there's a problem with one then they both blow up.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:15 AM on March 16, 2011

For those that miss arclight - there is a live Q and A session at the Reuters Live Earthquake Blog with nuclear engineering expert Dr. Yaron Danon, Director of the Gaerttner LINAC laboratory and his colleague Dr. Peter Caracappa, who is a radiation safety expert.
posted by ultrabuff at 8:15 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

In his post yesterday on one of the photos of No. 3 (posted upthread) he says:

The photo indicates that the explosion caused severe damage to the entire reactor building and destroyed all of the the equipment at the top of the reactor, such as cranes.

The spent fuel pool is several stories above ground. It is right next to the reactor and is exposed to the open sky. Steam may be billowing out from the spent fuel pool, which suggests boiling and evaporation. If the pool wall or support has been damaged by the earthquake or the explosion, then water drainage is a very serious concern. If the water drops exposing the spent fuel, radiation doses will be life-threatening on the reactor site. Moreover, if exposed to the air for several hours, the zirconium cladding encasing the spent uranium fuel will catch fire -- releasing potentially enormous amounts of long-lived radioactive materials.

The photo clearly illustrates that they do not have the situation under control.

Do the events of the last 24 hours suggest that this may have started to happen, at least briefly? I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I think some reports have quoted officials stating that rods in the pool at #4 were briefly uncovered?
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:15 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

'They've lost control': French claim Japan is hiding full scale of nuclear disaster as TWO more reactors heat up

Could anyone here call BS-or-not on that allegation?
posted by jbickers at 8:16 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

In one of Alvarez's posts, that is.

I previewed! Honest!
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:17 AM on March 16, 2011

Why did they think putting the cooling pools for spent fuel on the roof was a good idea?

At a rough guess: because transporting hot fuel rods is dangerous so the shorter the distance they have to travel, the better.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 8:19 AM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Jesus, this picture. You look at that and wonder how could they possibly NOT have lost control.
posted by something something at 8:20 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Could anyone here call BS-or-not on that allegation?

Well France gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, so they probably know what they're talking about.

On the other hand you're linking to the Daily Mail which is the UK equivalent of Fox News, and yesterday had the subtle front page headline of MELTDOWN in 4-inch high letters.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:21 AM on March 16, 2011 [9 favorites]

EndsofInvention, while it's still there, the cutaway drawing over on Wikimedia Commons may help explain the design. The reactor core is in the red cylinder, and the torus below it is the coolant circulation system. The spent fuel pool is in the top corner beneath the gantry. The entire thing is nominally all under water -- the same water pool.
posted by dhartung at 8:21 AM on March 16, 2011

> Could anyone here call BS-or-not on that allegation?

It's the Daily Mail, so with the most politeness I can muster I would say it's unfounded scaremongering in lieu of corroboration by any news agency who has resources closer to the action.
posted by ardgedee at 8:21 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Could anyone here call BS-or-not on that allegation?

Despite being from the Daily Mail, its a fairly accurate summary of recent events. I don't know about the quote attributed to the French, but I think a lot of observers would agree that Japan has 'lost control', for most reasonable definitions of 'losing control'. They are bravely scrambling to come up with solutions, but they are way off the map now in terms of expected problems or planned responses.
posted by memebake at 8:23 AM on March 16, 2011

^ Although, the Daily Mail could perhaps have avoided using the word 'apocalypse' and reminded readers that most experts have said there's little risk if you're more than 20km away from the plant. But the events the article describes are accurate afaik.
posted by memebake at 8:26 AM on March 16, 2011

On reflection I guess maybe if you have a ground-level pool you might end up with your old fuel rods being washed away in a tsunami. Hmmm. Still, having them so close to the reactor seems like putting all your radioactive eggs in one basket.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:27 AM on March 16, 2011

warbaby and dougiedd also cited the Alvarez paper before I did in this thread. Fascinating.
posted by mwhybark at 8:28 AM on March 16, 2011

One radioactive basket is perhaps better than two radioactive baskets?
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:28 AM on March 16, 2011

BBC reports -

The EU's energy chief Guenther Oettinger has said that in the coming hours "there could be further catastrophic events, which could pose a threat to the lives of people on the island". He told the European Parliament the Fukushima nuclear site was "effectively out of control". "The cooling systems did not work, and as a result we are somewhere between a disaster and a major disaster."

posted by tomcosgrave at 8:28 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

On the other hand you're linking to the Daily Mail

This.

In general, it's best to just ignore anything in the Daily Mail. Any real information that they might accidentally publish is certain to also appear in reputable news sources.
posted by klausness at 8:31 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think they have probably completely exhausted the playbook and are trying to jury rig solutions on the fly at this point. Worker exhaustion + a lack of clear data about conditions in various parts of the plant mean that in effect these guys are kinda flying blind. Further since they are having to juggle so many different failures in so many different areas it seems like they are spread incredibly thin currently.

Hopefully the improving conditions at the other plants mean that more back-up can be found for these guys plus I think bringing in military and civilian nuke operators from other countries (US in particular) would be a highly advisable course of action. In the mean time it seems like they keep putting fingers in the dyke but it keeps springing new leaks. I just wonder when or if it's going to get completely away from them.
posted by vuron at 8:31 AM on March 16, 2011

BBC reports -

"but his spokeswoman said he had no specific or privileged information on the situation."
posted by cashman at 8:32 AM on March 16, 2011

From what I was reading yesterday, what's troubling is the quantity and type of material in the Fukushima pools, and that they have been exposed--and possibly had the geometry of their racks distorted by explosions in the secondary containment (most likely by debris)--not that reactor sites have storage pools (which is basically inevitable in some form.) There are some papers from a few years back talking about storage capacity and reprocessing programs.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:32 AM on March 16, 2011

OK, thanks for that. Wasn't familiar with Daily Mail, saw the article on Ebert's Twitter feed.
posted by jbickers at 8:32 AM on March 16, 2011

One radioactive basket is perhaps better than two radioactive baskets?

Well, no, hence the idiom "putting all your eggs in one basket". If something goes wrong with the reactor or the old rods, it threatens the other since they are so close. Separate them and a problem with one does not automatically threaten the other.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:33 AM on March 16, 2011

As to the worst case scenario, I believe it's a combustion of the rod cladding and so a release of radioactive particulate in a plume of some kind. Not just a meltdown of the material in the pools.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:34 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

there would be little effect over 30km away because the radioactive material can't spread that far

Who wants to square this up the the US Navy supposedly moving ships that were under threat of "contamination" at 100 miles? The reports suggest "low levels," but it would still mean that radioactive material is indeed traveling that far, in some small amount. Was this just an abundance of caution on the Navy's part?
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:37 AM on March 16, 2011

At the risk of sounding overly naive, what are some best case scenarios for this? How can this situation resolve itself as favorably as possible at this point?

Can anyone give me some hope that this will all work out somehow?
posted by fremen at 8:38 AM on March 16, 2011

Well, no, hence the idiom "putting all your eggs in one basket". If something goes wrong with the reactor or the old rods, it threatens the other since they are so close. Separate them and a problem with one does not automatically threaten the other

That makes basic sense. However, you run up against safety issues in transportation, centralized storage, reprocessing, etc. I can try and find the papers and powerpoints that discussed the programs in place and options on the table from a few years back. My understanding of the material was (unsurprisingly) uncertain.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:39 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

fremen: best case, they just need to get water and boric acid into the pools and reactors. Normally that would be fairly easy, but they're having trouble getting close enough, and getting power, and getting water, etc.
posted by memebake at 8:40 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

what are some best case scenarios for this?

We wake up.
posted by ryanrs at 8:40 AM on March 16, 2011 [20 favorites]

The refueling pits are not supposed to be long-term storage, as far as I know. They're a buffer area so you can decouple the defueling operation from the fuel shipping operation. You want them to be close to the reactor and inside the building to minimize the distance you're swinging fuel assemblies through the open environment with a crane, and minimize the complication of the operation (and thus the risk).

Out of the reactor, into the pond. Repeat. New fuel in. Start back up. Then, without the schedule pressure of needing to get the plant back operating, you can package and ship slowly, methodically, safely.
posted by ctmf at 8:41 AM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

Still, having them so close to the reactor seems like putting all your radioactive eggs in one basket.

That's true, but there are also problems with trying to have the spent fuel pool far from the reactor. That stuff is pretty nasty right when it comes out of the reactor, so you really don't want to do anything tricky with it, and want to minimize the amount of handling it requires.

That usually means you want to unload the reactor, move the fuel over to the pool, and lower it into the pool, all with the same crane. Multiple crane operations, conveyor belts, whatever else you might need for a longer move, introduce all kinds of places for things to go wrong in the process.

It's also handy to have the pool inside the secondary containment where anything that does get released into the air can be captured and filtered out. If you had the pool somewhere else you'd have to address that separately for it.
posted by FishBike at 8:42 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

snuffleupagus & ctmf: That all makes sense, thanks. I guess the impression I got was that they permanently stored all their spent fuel in those pools rather than it being a more temporary holding area.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:43 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

So, my read of the worst case scenario at this point is: Recriticality occurring in the storage pools - that is, a self-sustaining nuclear reaction starts because the spent fuel melts and bunches together - which could (could it?) then progress to a meltdown in the storage pools. The Storage pools arent designed to contain a meltdown so it would presumably burn through and then end up on the floor, burning into the ground.

A "meltdown" refers to the reactor's internal structure melting, and is a bit of a misnomer in this case. If the spent fuel melts and bunches together, you have a reaction, but no reactor to contain it. There is no meltdown that can occur, because there is nothing there to melt. You get a completely uncontained and uncontrolled reaction that is probably also on fire.

I've tried to keep my calm and faith throughout this, but this does not look good at all.

Also -- The Daily Mail is a horrible news source, and has a penchant for irresponsible and sensationalist headlines. HOWEVER, after a cursory skim of the linked article, I can't find any point in particular that I disagree with. In fact, it's probably one of the better single-page summaries of the current state of affairs that I've seen. Carry on.
posted by schmod at 8:44 AM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

I heard a report last night that reactor 4 had 800 bundles of spent fuel rods in it, which seems like a hell of a lot of spent fuel to leave sitting around. I'd think they would generally want to offload that to the reprocessing facilitites before that kind of inventory builds up. Anyone know what is SOP for numbers of spent fuel rod bundles that are generally kept in these?
posted by Windopaene at 8:45 AM on March 16, 2011

EndsOfInvention: I don't guarantee that that's what they were doing, of course.
posted by ctmf at 8:45 AM on March 16, 2011

memebake - I get that. But what are the steps towards resolving that?

I suppose I see a whole bunch of intractable problems that don't easily lend themselves towards resolution. The reactors and pools need cooling water and boric acid, but the radiation danger makes it hard to deliver that. Ideally, they need long term cooling so that everything can just settle down for a few years before it's safe to disassemble the plant.

But nothing I'm seeing or hearing suggests how that's even remotely possible. It all sounds like we're on a death-march that can't be stopped.

So can this be stopped? What would have to happen to make that possible?
posted by fremen at 8:46 AM on March 16, 2011

(To elaborate on my previous comment: If the fuel pools completely lost coolant, the casings melted, and the fuel started reacting, "criticality accident" would be the correct term to use)
posted by schmod at 8:46 AM on March 16, 2011

47 News reports that the water cannon has arrived on site and they are making preparations to hose water on reactor 4. Reactor 3 seems to pose the greater danger now, but the radiation is higher -- not sure if they can approach safely.
posted by Jeanne at 8:47 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I swear I saw someone (zippy?) post stored-fuel amounts for 1-4 in this thread, but I can't put my finger on it.

NPR coverage is reporting a second possible containment breach but I have lost the thread on currency and can't tell if it's new info since last night or if it's end-of-day yesterday info. The report cites workers being pulled back again.

Regarding the EU/French "they've lost control" stuff, that appears to be the guiding set of assumptions from the actual European nuclear authorities and has been for a couple-three days. But that 'no special info' kicker has been in place all along as well.

It's a bit puzzling; I think the pros there analyzed the situation as having a high probability of extremely negative outcome early on and grew dismayed at the minimization strategies in TEPCO's communication. So maybe it's kinda driven by an attempt to retain credibility with the European public, maybe it's driven by professional incredulity.
posted by mwhybark at 8:47 AM on March 16, 2011

I thought spent fuel storage was largely intended to be relatively short term but the realities of reprocessing spent fuel rods plus the issues with transporting hazardous waste often means that many reactors have really large stockpiles of spent fuel rods. In this case the spent fuel rods seem to dramatically outnumber the number of rods located in the three previously active reactors.

Does Japan have a long term nuclear waste storage facility or do they reprocess or store on site everything?
posted by vuron at 8:47 AM on March 16, 2011

schmod: You get a completely uncontained and uncontrolled reaction that is probably also on fire.

Right, so what are the implications of that? How far could radioactivity spread from an uncontained reaction thats on fire? Cos the Guardian had some chap yesterday saying that even an exploding reactor would not spread stuff more than 10 or 20km.
posted by memebake at 8:48 AM on March 16, 2011

Here's what I was reading. I think there perhaps is more "storage" being done in the pools than the original design intends.

"Japan's Civilian Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Nuclear Spent Fuel Management Issues"

There's an NRC report that suggests the same thing is being done in US facilities, given the lack of long term alternate facilities. I can try and find that too.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:50 AM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

Fremen: So can this be stopped? What would have to happen to make that possible?

well, if they can hose some water in, the situation will start improving, and then I guess they'd be prepared to keep hosing water in and dropping boric acid for as long as it takes. It would be expensive, but its do-able.
posted by memebake at 8:52 AM on March 16, 2011

EndsOfInvention: "snuffleupagus & ctmf: That all makes sense, thanks. I guess the impression I got was that they permanently stored all their spent fuel in those pools rather than it being a more temporary holding area."

IIRC Japan recycles fuel, so fuel-storage density in those pools is presumed to be pretty positive, that is, not that dense. The Alvarez paper specifically highlights high-density and long-term storage in US pools as a feature of our industry because there's no national consensus or program regarding long-term storage or recycling.
posted by mwhybark at 8:53 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

But from what I've read, even then there would be little effect over 30km away because the radioactive material can't spread that far (because there is no carbon bonfire like there was a chernobyl).

Okay, for my own sense of context if nobody else's, this comes from the Guardian (who are quoting info from the UK's Institution of Mechanical Engineers):

A concern for the people not just of Japan but the Pan Pacific area is whether Fukushima will turn into the next Chernobyl with radiation spread over a big area. The answer is that this scenario is highly unlikely, because of the wildly different design of the two reactors.

The reason why radiation was disseminated so widely from Chernobyl with such devastating effects was a carbon fire. Some 1,200 tonnes of carbon were in the reactor at Chernobyl and this caused the fire which projected radioactive material up into the upper atmosphere causing it to be carried across most of Europe.

There is no carbon in the reactors at Fukushima, and this means that even if a large amount of radioactive material were to leak from the plant, it would only affect the local area.

The Japanese authorities acted swiftly and decisively in evacuating people living within 20km of the plant, and ensuring people living within 30km of the plant remained in their homes, with windows and doors closed. The radiation measured so far at Fukushima is 100,000 times less than that at Chernobyl.

So, um, yes it's a fucking mess. No, it's not the end of the world (just may 20 square kms of it).
posted by philip-random at 8:53 AM on March 16, 2011 [7 favorites]

snuffleupagus: "Here's what I was reading. I think there perhaps is more "storage" being done in the pools than the original design intends.

"Japan's Civilian Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Nuclear Spent Fuel Management Issues"

There's an NRC report that suggests the same thing is being done in US facilities, given the lack of long term alternate facilities. I can try and find that too"

Well there you go.
posted by mwhybark at 8:54 AM on March 16, 2011

I think there was another paper that had Fukushima specific information. I'll keep looking. Here's the NRC stuff:

"It isn't your grandfather's SFP"

and NEI (nuke industry policy group)

"Industry perspectives on Spent Fuel Pool criticality"

Made it sound to me like safety margins that existed in the original evisioned design specs are being compromised for more storage (higher density racks with panels, boronating the water as a matter of course.)

Well there you go.
Well, I'm hesitant to rely on what I can glean from reading this stuff.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:57 AM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

re: storage pool build ups: My understanding was the world basically has never sorted out what to do with the long term waste, and with the waste thats being recycled, there's a reluctance to move it around too much. Because people dont like that. So the end result is that a large amount of fuel ends up hanging around near the power stations while the prevarication continues.
posted by memebake at 9:01 AM on March 16, 2011 [6 favorites]

The pools are as close as possible to the reactor because the crane that pulls them out of the reactor has to get them underwater immediately. They are intensely radioactive.

I think I have a handle on what is driving the slow pace of the response and the hesitation to commit resources to a situation that has manifestly been out of control for days. I first started thinking along these lines on Monday night. I immediately turned off the computer and went for a long walk to think things over. The evidence is sketchy and in part mostly the absence of information, so take all of this with more than a grain of salt. Logic is not a certain guide when information is incomplete.

I've been puzzled by the reluctance to commit massive resources and instead of this, the slow withdrawal of resources. The lack of resources compounded problems. The exemplar was the pumps running out of fuel.

There have been other evidence of reluctance to bring in available resources: the turning away of the fire truck from US Armed Forces Japan reported by the NYT; the evacuation of the plant "non-essential" personnel (the number 50 may be related to the shelter capacity of the heavily shielded control room) when they clearly aren't able to get things done with 50 people; the wait for a legal change to the allowable exposure limit; and now the decision to not use helicopters because it would exceed the legal exposure limit for military personnel.

This suggests the highest priority for those in charge is the avoidance of immediate casualties. In a degrading situation, this will lead to a spiral of less and less resources to deal with a worsening situation. Continued to the logical end, it would mean abandoning the plant and any effort to deal with it locally. This might be justified if the worst case radiological dispersion is acceptable. If the worst case is unacceptable, then a change in policy needs to be considered.

I should point out that we do not know what the risks and probabilities are in the worst case. It may not be knowable in the timeframe of events.

However, if it turns out that the avoidance of immediate casualties is the guiding policy (as I suspect is the case) and if political situation is such that this policy is rejected in favor of accepting more immediate risk to offset a much larger risk in the long term, the only option will be to put more people and physical assets in danger, perhaps fatally.

If Robert Alvarez's worst case scenario is accurate, the dilemma I've outlined above may have been unfolding in private for some time now.

The questions I'm now turning over concern who are the decision makers who ultimately control the response policy. To date, it seems like the government has allowed TEPCO nearly complete control of the situation. At what point would that change and who would be involved?
posted by warbaby at 9:05 AM on March 16, 2011 [19 favorites]

Phillip-Random: Here's what one of the knowledgeable folks in this thread had to say a little while back on the question of worst-case scenario. The impression I'm getting is that, no, it's not strictly a given anymore that this will remain only a local problem. At the outset that seemed to be the most likely worst-case, but far worse worst-case scenarios have been and are continuing to become more likely as the situation evolves.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:06 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Found it.
NIRS:
Integrity Inspection of Dry Storage Casks and Spent Fuels at Fukushima Daiichi NPS (Nov 2010) [pdf]
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:09 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Not sure how that link got mangled. Let's try again:

Integrity Inspection of Dry Storage Casks and Spent Fuels at Fukushima Daiichi NPS (Nov 2010) [pdf]
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:10 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

saulgoodman: Here's what one of the knowledgeable folks in this thread had to say a little while back on the question of worst-case scenario.

Right, he adds up all the available radiation, but he doesn't present a mechanism for how it could get into the atmosphere. i've seen several experts say that radiation from Fukushima could not spread as far as Chernobyl did because there's no carbon to ignite. I suppose my question is: would an uncontained nuclear reaction (criticality accident) be able to get a plume going into the upper atmosphere, or would it stay more local? Perhaps the answer is that we don't know, because I don't think we've ever had uncontained nuclear reactions on the loose.
posted by memebake at 9:14 AM on March 16, 2011

IIRC Japan recycles fuel, so fuel-storage density in those pools is presumed to be pretty positive, that is, not that dense. The Alvarez paper specifically highlights high-density and long-term storage in US pools as a feature of our industry because there's no national consensus or program regarding long-term storage or recycling.

The above notes that "increasing the capacity of SFPs by reracking, installation of common SFP and installation of dry cask facilities" has been done already at Fukushima Daiichi 1 through 6, and Fukushima Daiini 1 through 4 have been re-racked for higher density...
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:14 AM on March 16, 2011

Phillip-Random: Here's what one of the knowledgeable folks in this thread had to say a little while back on the question of worst-case scenario. The impression I'm getting is that, no, it's not strictly a given anymore that this will remain only a local problem.

What I get from that scenario is that, very worst case, as much as six times the amount of toxicity gets released into the atmosphere than at Cernobyl. But, lacking carbon in the cores, would it burn to equivalent atmospheric height, which was the issue at Cernobyl that allowed for such widespread fallout? Or would it just mean a more intensely affected 20-30 km area?
posted by philip-random at 9:18 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

... or what memebake just said.
posted by philip-random at 9:19 AM on March 16, 2011

I swear I saw someone (zippy?) post stored-fuel amounts for 1-4 in this thread, but I can't put my finger on it.

Reactor 1　２９２　　（９００）

Reactor 2　５８７　（１２４０）

Reactor 3　５１４　（１２２０）

Reactor 4　７８３　（１５９０）

Reactor 5　９４６　（１５９０）

Reactor 6 ８７６　（１７７０）

From this comment.
posted by scalefree at 9:21 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Right, he adds up all the available radiation, but he doesn't present a mechanism for how it could get into the atmosphere.

Under the NRC's worst case estimates for densely packed, boron-boxed, but extremely depleted fuel, the temperature of the bottom of the assembly, partially uncovered by water, reaches 2000C.

Can concrete hold up to that kind of temperature?
posted by zippy at 9:21 AM on March 16, 2011

memebake: there's a lot of range between "30 miles" and "thousands of miles". Worst case will probably be less than thousands but more than 30 miles. The most troubling fact is the closeness of Tokyo.
posted by rainy at 9:22 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

BBC: "The governor of the region at the centre of Japan's nuclear crisis has criticised official handling of the evacuation of the area around the stricken Fukushima Daiichi power plant.

Fukushima prefecture governor Yuhei Sato said: "Anxiety and anger felt by people have reached boiling point." "

This seems justifiable, but isn't this anomalous within Japanese political culture?
posted by mwhybark at 9:24 AM on March 16, 2011

scalefree: "I swear I saw someone (zippy?) post stored-fuel amounts for 1-4 in this thread, but I can't put my finger on it.

Reactor 1　２９２　　（９００）

Reactor 2　５８７　（１２４０）

Reactor 3　５１４　（１２２０）

Reactor 4　７８３　（１５９０）

Reactor 5　９４６　（１５９０）

Reactor 6 ８７６　（１７７０）

From this comment"

Thank you scalefree.
posted by mwhybark at 9:26 AM on March 16, 2011

Under the NRC's worst case estimates for densely packed, boron-boxed, but extremely depleted fuel, the temperature of the bottom of the assembly, partially uncovered by water, reaches 2000C.

Can concrete hold up to that kind of temperature?

There are recently removed rods in the #4 pool. Not sure if that changes the math...
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:26 AM on March 16, 2011

Can concrete hold up to that kind of temperature?

The effects of high temperature on concrete

I'm no engineer, but at a glance, I'd say that 2000 degrees would be bad even for high temperature concrete.
posted by empath at 9:29 AM on March 16, 2011

Perhaps the answer is that we don't know, because I don't think we've ever had uncontained nuclear reactions on the loose.

I think this is really the most honest answer from my own interpretations of more knowledgeable people's remarks. A couple of possibilities I've heard mentioned for wider dispersal: 1) un-contained core meltdown(s) leading to contamination of water table/ocean; 2) several different scenarios leading to explosions caused by some kind of reactivity that distribute the materials more widely*. I don't think it's possible to say with any degree of what I'm comfortable calling certainty that this will remain strictly a local problem. But then, I'm temperamentally on the cautiously pessimistic side, and definitely not one of the knowledgeable people here on this topic.

(*You know, more widely across Japan, not all the way to Manhattan or anything.)
posted by saulgoodman at 9:31 AM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

Here's the source spent fuel stored on site as of Nov 2010:

Integrity inspection of dry storage casks and spent fuels at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (pdf). Yumiko Kumano, Tokyo Electric Power Co. Nov 2010.
posted by zippy at 9:31 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure if a meltdown of the storage pool contents through the bottom is the chief concern at that point, but rather whatever the radioactivity of the combustion products when the rods burn off their cladding once uncovered and heated to the point of ignition?
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:32 AM on March 16, 2011

To date, it seems like the government has allowed TEPCO nearly complete control of the situation. At what point would that change and who would be involved?

warbaby, this is not true. PM Kan "took over" the Fukushima reactor earlier this week in the sense that the Japanese government is working directly with TEPCO to try to mitigate the critical situation. That said, while there are experts outside, no one knows the situation better than TEPCO staff (and the GE consultants who were on site doing maintenance on reactors 4-6 and fled right after the quake.)

I do think there is some credence to your thinking. I just can't see what they are going to do with 50 people and 3-4 failing reactors.
posted by gen at 9:32 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

pardon the mangled wording. postus interruptus.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:33 AM on March 16, 2011

"The most troubling fact is the closeness of Tokyo."

Sooo... "New Tokyo" or "NeoTokyo", everyone?!
posted by markkraft at 9:33 AM on March 16, 2011

The Times has an article up on the Emperor's speech:
Emperor Akihito of Japan, in an unprecedented television address to the nation, said on Wednesday that he was “deeply worried” about the ongoing nuclear crisis at several stricken reactors and asked for people to act with compassion “to overcome these difficult times.”

An official with the Imperial Household Agency said that Akihito had never before delivered a nationally televised address of any kind, not even in the aftermath of the Kobe earthquake in 1995 that killed more than 6,000 people. The address was videotaped.
Christian Science Monitor says that the speech will remind older listeners of the speech his father gave when Japan surrendered at the end of WWII.
posted by zarq at 9:37 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

For those who can't view the PDF where they are, this Nov 2010 report states that Fukushima Daiichi had 1,760 ton-U stored as of March 2010, out of a 2,100 ton-U capacity, putting them at 84% occupancy. This is approximately fuel 15,200 assemblies in open pool storage, with more in dry casks.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:40 AM on March 16, 2011

You know, I'm really starting to worry that one of the biggest pitfalls to many of our current energy technologies is that they have the potential to function as natural disaster multipliers, significantly worsening the long-term impacts of certain kinds of natural disasters. Imagine what would happen if a major earthquake like this hit the Gulf, with thousands of drilling rigs scattered all along the coast like mosquitoes sucking up all that oil. Or if one hit California (which is overdue for a big one) with all it's nuclear plants. It's like we've been setting ourselves up bit by bit over the years for one great big energy-tech complicated super-calamity...
posted by saulgoodman at 9:45 AM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Sorry, make that a capacity of around 15,200 fuel assemblies in pool storage with around 9,750 present in March 2010. The dry cask capacity at Daiichi is 408 assemblies, and is full, so whatever they've produced since then has presumably been added to the pools.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:46 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Do the passive-cooling new reactor designs also have passive cooling spent fuel storage that can be easily (easier, if you like) refilled?
posted by rainy at 9:49 AM on March 16, 2011

California with all it's nuclear plants

That makes it sound like a lot. California has two operating nuclear plants.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 9:50 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

From The effects of high temperature on concrete

"Most high-temperature concretes have a marked decrease (25 to 50%) in strength when heated from 105°C to 540°C. Further heating from 540°C to 1090°C usually has only a slight effect on strength.

At about 1090°C, initial liquid formation occurs, and the hot strength decreases considerably."
posted by zippy at 9:50 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's like we've been setting ourselves up bit by bit over the years for one great big energy-tech complicated super-calamity...

If you wanna play, you gotta pay... TINSTAAFL.

In the long run conservation and changes in our habits are the only way to avoid such dependencies.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:53 AM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

That makes it sound like a lot. California has two operating nuclear plants.

Ah, I stand corrected. Even Florida has at least that many doesn't it? I know we have one in Crystal River. Sorry if that bit was misleading. Don't trust any novel or seemingly novel information on nuke technology from me; I've really got none other than what little I've gleaned from Bond films.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:54 AM on March 16, 2011

It's TNSTAAFL

No "I"
posted by Windopaene at 9:55 AM on March 16, 2011

TANTSAAFL. Ain't.
posted by scalefree at 9:57 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

I believe "TANSTAAFL," "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch," is canonical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain't_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch
posted by Jeanne at 9:58 AM on March 16, 2011

I just thought of a new one: MSSCF - multiple safety systems can fail. CF also stands for cold fusion which would MSS's unnecessary.
posted by rainy at 9:58 AM on March 16, 2011

Doh - would make.
posted by rainy at 9:58 AM on March 16, 2011

Roland's 5th Law of Metafilter: As the length, complexity, and seriousness of a thread increase the tendency for typos/dumb mistakes increases as well.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:00 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Found this post on the MITNSE.com blog that talks about the temprature and energy of the disabled rods. Apparently they're still putting out megawatts of heat. And they don't talk about whats happening in the pools.

Wow. Why did they think putting the cooling pools for spent fuel on the roof was a good idea? And not just on the roof, but right next to the working reactor. Seems like that would be the most vulnerable place to locate it.

Anyone know if there was an actual safety reason for that design, or was it driven by cost or something?

Probably because the rods are so hot, you don't really have a lot of time to move them. I don't know. You probably have to keep them in the core for a long time cooling as well.
posted by delmoi at 10:03 AM on March 16, 2011

mitnse.com was discredited as astroturf for/by Philips.
posted by rainy at 10:06 AM on March 16, 2011

OK, but I knew the "I" wasn't right.

Been like 20 years since I read that book, maybe 30...
posted by Windopaene at 10:06 AM on March 16, 2011

mitnse.com was discredited as astroturf for/by Philips.

The domain is linked by mit.edu as the blog for their department of nuclear science and engineering (right sidebar at the top). Is MIT corrupt or hacked?
posted by exogenous at 10:09 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Rainy: I realize that but I'm assuming the numbers are correct for the power output.
posted by delmoi at 10:09 AM on March 16, 2011

Going back to: Right, he adds up all the available radiation, but he doesn't present a mechanism for how it could get into the atmosphere.

Speculation on my part:

1) Zircaloy cladding catches fire, burns at 2000C (possibly higher, as the 2000C figure is for very old, spent fuel). Cladding that is not on fire bends and deforms from heat (zircaloy melting point 900C)
2) Zircaloy reacts with water to form hydrogen, some of which collects in zircaloy tube between pellets, ignites, fracturing pellets and sending a mix of large and small particles into the air
3) Under 2000C heat, concrete deforms, melts, (burns?), sending 2000C pellets and burning cladding everywhere (landing on painted surfaces, hydraulic lines, insulation, building materials)
4) spilt 2000C fuel hits cold wet concrete floor 40' below (potential for violently fracturing)
5) combustable stuff in building combusts, creating smoke, more heat, sending a fraction of the original spent fuel into the air (plus radioactive building materials)

posted by zippy at 10:12 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Is it correct to assume that pretty much any smoke coming from the site is distributing some level of radioactivity more widely?
posted by saulgoodman at 10:14 AM on March 16, 2011

Wow.
Comparing of Japan's culture in the early to mid 20th century to modern Japanese society is really odd, to my mind. I find it impssible to believe the average Japanese person, police officer or soldier is as steeped in Samurai code as he might have been, say, 70 or 80 years ago. Try this: just because some very couragous Americans sacrificed themselves at Bunker Hill, Antietam, Iwo Jima, Inchon, Hue and all the way though 9/11 and beyond, can you count on some schmuck off the street to take the ultimate for the team?
posted by nj_subgenius at 10:15 AM on March 16, 2011

IANANE, and in fact, am mathematically challenged, so please review this post with a jaundiced and skeptical eye.

I took a crack at getting to potential release quanitites by combining the fuel-rod storage count and the modeling in the Alvarez paper. Please be advised, this is super basic and undoubtedly HIGHLY inaccurate.

tl;dr: potential fuel-pool event releases are dramatically smaller than the releases modeled in the Alvarez paper and appear to be, as we have been told, smaller than at Chernobyl. So I guess that's good news.

-----

From the Alvarez paper:

"In case of a loss of cooling, the time it would take for a spent-fuel pool to boil down to near the top of the spent fuel would be more than 10 days if the most recent spent-fuel discharge had been a year before. If the entire core of a reactor had been unloaded into the spent fuel pool only a few days after shutdown, the time could be as short as a day."

Additionally, on page 12, they show two examples of estimated plume size and exposures for releases, one containing 3.5 megacuries, the other containing 35 megacuries. The extent of the plume in the larger instance is approximately 100km x 525km.

The paper notes that both of these models assume greater concentration of cesium137 in the affected area than Chernobyl, due to both the greater concentrations of material in the paper's model than was present at Chernobyl (I think) and the greater lofting and larger dispersal area seen at Chernobyl than the hypothetical releases modeled in the paper.

The paper refers to "the 2 MCi release from the Chernobyl accident."

The paper also characterizes some other assumptions as follows:

"A typical U.S. spent fuel pool today contains about 400 tons of spent fuel (see Figure 3). (In this article, wherever tons are referred to, metric tons are meant.) Furthermore, since the concentration of 137Cs builds up almost linearly with burnup, there is on average about twice as much in a ton of spent fuel as in a ton of fuel in the reactor core.

For an average cumulative fission energy release of 40 Megawatt-days thermal per kg of uranium originally in the fuel (MWt-days/kgU) and an average subsequent decay time of 15 years, 400 tons of spent power-reactor fuel would contain 35 megaCuries (MCi) of 137Cs."

So now we have a basal metric to apply these assumptions to the rod counts, above, with about 12 tons of waste containing 1 MCi.

Here is a site with information on the weight and volume of spent fuel.

That page cites 63 rods per assembly, a probably-typoed assembly weight of 319kg, and an accounted U and UO2 weight per assembly of 391kg with structural components and radioactives together totaling just over 600g per assembly.

Let's assume that the Alvarez paper is only concerned with actual weight of radioactives in the fuel, and thus let's treat 391kg as the fuel weight. That gives 6.21kg per rod.

unit	RODS	CAPACITY	est fuel weight
1	292	900	1813.64 kg
2	587	1240	3645.92 kg
3	514	1220	3192.51 kg
4	783	1590	4863.3 kg
5	946	1590	5875.71 kg
6	876	1770	5440.93 kg

It's not clear if the paper is referring to metric tonnnes of 1000kg or english ton of 901.x kg.

Let's use the smaller value.

FACILITY	in tons
1	2
2	4.02
3	3.52
4	5.36
5	6.48
6	6
	
total	27.38
total at 1-4	14.9

OK, so a worst case four-unit fuel-pool recriticality incident is likely to involve about 15 tons of fuel, FAR less than the scenarios explored in the Alvarez paper.

Earlier, we estimated 12 tons of waste to contain a potential 1 MCi. Therefore this fuel should contain a potential 1.25 MCi.

excluding core criticality, that would mean any potential waste-pool releases will be less than that released by Chernobyl, which is in line with what we have been hearing.

the paper seemed to extrapolate pretty striaghtforwardly to estimate the plumes, so since this maximal waste-fuel only scenario is waaay less than the 35MCi scenario, it would seem to indicate the model would involve a dispersal area of significantly smaller area as well.
posted by mwhybark at 10:17 AM on March 16, 2011 [8 favorites]

exogenous: it sounds like the domain itself was created by a guy a few days ago who gave misleading information about his qualifications and posted a very incompetent article that gained wide acceptance at first. I don't know anything beyond that, perhaps other people involved in the blog are trustworthy.

delmoi: yes, that quote is most likely fine, just pointing it out for others that the site itself may be suspect..
posted by rainy at 10:18 AM on March 16, 2011

I'll see your TANSTAAFL and raise you IITYWYBMAD, so there.
posted by nj_subgenius at 10:20 AM on March 16, 2011

nj_subgenius: can you count on some schmuck off the street to take the ultimate for the team?
First, I wouldn't put these workers into the 'schmuck' pile, but I get what you're saying. My response is:
Yes, I like to think you can. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope not, in this case especially.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:23 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

rainy, perhaps you are thinking of this link, which had a post entitled "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors," which has been edited and is now hosted on mitnse.com.

I don't see the original blog post any more, but from what I recall (I could be wrong) it had an overly-optimistic prediction of the rate at which the cores would cool following insertion of the control rods which occurred when the quake hit. mitsne.com now has some more depressing figures.
posted by exogenous at 10:25 AM on March 16, 2011

RolandofEd, most fair, thanks.
posted by nj_subgenius at 10:27 AM on March 16, 2011

...i meant 'that was most fair'...
posted by nj_subgenius at 10:29 AM on March 16, 2011

can you count on some schmuck off the street to take the ultimate for the team?

Take a close look at this list of Cernobyl fatalities. A number at the top of it were killed, fatally exposed in the initial explosion, but most were individuals who were "on the ground" dealing with the aftermath of that explosion, many of them firemen. I doubt any of them had any serious illusions as to the danger of their situation. I suspect some behaved in a cowardly manner and got fatally dosed anyway. But most it seems were like soldiers in a firefight. They put aside every concern except the immediate one of containing the enemy (in this case, the meltdown). Call it pragmatic or call it heroic -- it speaks to how some humans behave in intensely deadly situations. I don't consider any of them schmucks.
posted by philip-random at 10:30 AM on March 16, 2011

exogenous: there was discussion about this upthread where Philips connection came up. The biggest problem with the original post was that he claimed the reactors at Daiichi have core catchers, which they don't. That's a pretty big red flag. Later the post was revised.
posted by rainy at 10:31 AM on March 16, 2011

Some questions. First, is this crisis going on at Fukushima 1 (Dai-Ichi, right?) or at Fukushima 2 (Dai-Ni?). Or both?

Second, are there other nuclear plants in Japan experiencing problems right now? How many? Could someone give a list with whatever is known about their current status?

Is there somewhere else on the web that is keeping an updated list of this info?

I'm SO SORRY since I'm sure this info has already been provided in this thread, but the thread is so big that I'm having a hard time keeping up. Again, my apologies.

I have to leave soon, so I just want to take this opportunity to thank all of the awesome Me-Fites who have been so generous with their time, expertise and experience, especially those who continue to do so in the face of frustration, fear and even anger from some of us here. Hugs all around to everybody on all sides.
posted by marsha56 at 10:31 AM on March 16, 2011

excluding core criticality,

But can we exclude core criticality? Hasn't there been some concern about the possibility of so-called 'recriticality' of the fuel rods in the pool and criticality in the other reactors?
posted by saulgoodman at 10:33 AM on March 16, 2011

(link i meant to include to earlier comments in thread about "re-criticality")
posted by saulgoodman at 10:35 AM on March 16, 2011

But can we exclude core criticality? Hasn't there been some concern about the possibility of so-called 'recriticality' of the fuel rods in the pool and criticality in the other reactors?

From earlier:

Kyodo says that workers the facility have been unable to pour water into the pool containing the spent fuel rods because of high radiation levels. Tepco, the plant's operators, are considering spraying the reactor with boric acid from overhead, warning: ''The possibility of recriticality is not zero".

So it's possible, there is some probability other then zero of it happening.
posted by delmoi at 10:37 AM on March 16, 2011

Evidently a careless word selection on my part!
Please don't think for a second that these fated souls are anything less than amazingly heroic, selfless, good-to-the-ultimate-degree people. I hope and trust that many survive but I couldn't say. I was more thinking of the clowns I see on Maple St in my home town. Most of em would run in the opposite direction or turn on Glenn Beck, paralyzed by fear. Yuh, that's the kind of town I live in.
I apologize to anyone whom I offended.
posted by nj_subgenius at 10:37 AM on March 16, 2011

mwhybark, I believe the numbers per reactor unit are for stored assemblies, not rods, and (I am less confident of this) an assembly contains around .2t of fuel.

Unit 1 would then have 292 assemblies (in storage) * .2t/assembly = ~60,000kg.

(Again, I am very much unsure of these numbers).
posted by zippy at 10:37 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

exogenous - See the post "The strange case of Josef Oehmen" from norm at 9:27 PM, it was not long followed by some discussion over the following hour.
posted by chill at 10:38 AM on March 16, 2011

marsha56: I think all the problems are at Fukushima 1. The Guardian live blog has an info-graphic at the top of the page that they are keeping updated with the state of the reactors. The fact that this is complex and fast moving enough to need its own info-graphic is pretty telling.
posted by memebake at 10:38 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

mwhybark: "Popular Ethics (March 13): "On a completely different note, I'm hoping that someone reports the status of the spent fuel pools which were under the now-exploded roofs."

Popular Ethics then links to the same study I did, but hosted at a different location."

oops, it's actually the critical NRC response to the Alvarez paper.
posted by mwhybark at 10:39 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

are there other nuclear plants in Japan experiencing problems right now? How many? Could someone give a list with whatever is known about their current status?

Is there somewhere else on the web that is keeping an updated list of this info?

Wikipedia has a fairly concise description of the current status and previous events at the other plants.
posted by burnmp3s at 10:40 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

marsha: The problems are at Fukushima-1. This is the Daiichi plant (ichi means one in Japanese)

As far as I know, all other plants are stable. Fukushima-2 (Daini) was experiencing problems, but Tepco has been saying that all reactors there are stable and cooling is occurring.

This thread is an excellent source of updated info (I think :), but it's moving fast. I also like the Guardian Liveblog on the situation. The BBC and New York Times live blogs have also been doing a pretty good job.
posted by zachlipton at 10:40 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

zippy: "mwhybark, I believe the numbers per reactor unit are for stored assemblies, not rods, and (I am less confident of this) an assembly contains around .2t of fuel.

Unit 1 would then have 292 assemblies (in storage) * .2t/assembly = ~60,000kg.

(Again, I am very much unsure of these numbers)"

well, let me plug that in then. brb.
posted by mwhybark at 10:41 AM on March 16, 2011

I think the design of the reactor core is such that even in full meltdown the fuel is funneled into different masses to avoid criticality events. Or at least that seems to be general consensus about the Mark I design (no idea about the Toshiba design)

That doesn't necessarily seem to be the case in regards to the spent fuel pools which in many cases hold many more spent fuel rods than the reactor cores do.

In theory the amount of material required for a criticality event should be reduced in the spent fuel rods they are after all spent but there seems to be some thought that relatively fresh rods are racked there as well.

I'm not sure whether it's known if there is enough mass in the cooling pools to generate a criticality should the zirconium alloy completely break down and the bottom of the pool starts filling with molten uranium/plutonium.

Honestly there simple is way to much unknown which is super frustrating to all involved and witnessing.
posted by vuron at 10:41 AM on March 16, 2011

exogenous - See the post "The strange case of Josef Oehmen" from norm at 9:27 PM, it was not long followed by some discussion over the following hour.

Bandwith Exceeded. Google cache is here.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:41 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

It bears repeating to thank all of you. So, thank you. I wish I could contribute something more useful, so I'll just stay glued here and !post.
posted by nj_subgenius at 10:42 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

In the matter of personnel at Chernobyl, the documentary The Battle of Chernobyl was linked far, far upthread and is well worth watching. It has interviews with Gorbachev, various Soviet scientists and military personnel, medical staff, surviving workers and the Soviet journalist who covered the whole thing (taking huge doses of radiation himself). After the initial disaster, many people apparently knew the risks they ran (as much as anyone knew them at the time) and went ahead anyway. The "bio-robots" who cleared immensely radioactive debris off the reactor roof so that the sarcophagus could be built got a medal and one hundred rubles; many have died, many are disabled and facing benefit cuts...I hope that the people who work on this disaster are treated better by the Japanese government.
posted by Frowner at 10:42 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

nj_subgenius: I took no offense, understood just what you meant.

exogenous's link about decay heat includes a GREAT chart on the power ouputs of the reactors in question. I remember someone upthread (I'm not going to look for the post) asking, roughly:

"Why didn't their disaster plan include SCRAMing all but one reactor and using that one reactor to power the cooling systems of another?"

That graph is the best explanation of why SCRAMing while you can is the SOP for plants in disaster situations.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:42 AM on March 16, 2011

...aggghh on preview. Not post. bye and thanks again.
posted by nj_subgenius at 10:43 AM on March 16, 2011

From the Guardian's live blog memebake linked above:

5.36pm: Reuters reports that the US government is now advising its citizens who live within 80km of the Fukushima nuclear plant evacuate or take shelter indoors. The Japanese government has not altered its 20km exclusion zone.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:44 AM on March 16, 2011

As far as I know, all other plants are stable. Fukushima-2 (Daini) was experiencing problems, but Tepco has been saying that all reactors there are stable and cooling is occurring.

TEPCO announced cold stop for all Daini reactors at least a day ago.
posted by scalefree at 10:44 AM on March 16, 2011

With regard to the remaining workers: Is there any reason that TEPCO isn't rotating shifts of workers in and out of the plant, to lessen individuals' overall exposure? Perhaps the exposure from entering/exiting the plant would outweigh the benefit of having some time off elsewhere?

My understanding is that is exactly what they are doing, the '50' number is just the number allowed on site at one time, not the entirety of the number of workers available.
posted by nomisxid at 10:45 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thanks, rainy, chill, and snuffleupagus: I see that now about the questionable information from Josef Oehmen.

Still, I don't see anything to discredit mitsne.com as a reliable source from MIT.
posted by exogenous at 10:47 AM on March 16, 2011

vuron: there was a debate here last night about whether there were live or spent rods in Storage Pool 4. But eventually someone (ctmf?) said that it didn't make much difference in terms of criticality - because even though 'spent' rods can't be used by a reactor, they still have enough radioactive materials to be about the same as live rods wrt recriticality.
posted by memebake at 10:47 AM on March 16, 2011

Yikes: "Reuters reports that the US government is now advising its citizens who live within 80km of the Fukushima nuclear plant evacuate or take shelter indoors. The Japanese government has not altered its 20km exclusion zone."

Other nations have made similar advisories, but that's a pretty big indictment of the Japanese government from the US, especially since they previously endorsed the 20/30km policy.
posted by zachlipton at 10:48 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

^ or maybe I got the wrong end of the stick cos i can't find the relevant comment now.
posted by memebake at 10:50 AM on March 16, 2011

Oh wait, so the geniusnow link alleges that mitsne.com is the product of a rogue graphic designer? Weird - I wonder where he is supposed to be getting all this information that spells bad news for the reactors.
posted by exogenous at 10:51 AM on March 16, 2011

^ or maybe I got the wrong end of the stick cos i can't find the relevant comment now.

I remember it too. Ah ha! Here it is. It was Popular Ethics.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:52 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

> Is there any reason that TEPCO isn't rotating shifts of workers in and out of the plant, to lessen individuals' overall exposure?

It's generally understood TEPCO is doing exactly that; the problem is that as the level of exposure is higher, the recovery time away from exposure has to be longer. The hotter the work environment, the more staff you'll churn through.
posted by ardgedee at 10:54 AM on March 16, 2011

exogenous: it's just a bit odd that the domain was created a few days ago to make that first post that said everything will be fine. Now they added the comment at the top of the post that they basically disagree with it and "only use it as a starting point". It makes sense to use other sources, not so closely connected to this dodgy character.
posted by rainy at 10:55 AM on March 16, 2011

For what it's worth, I've been keeping an eye on radiation levels in Ibaraki prefecture, the next prefecture south of Fukushima, which has basically real-time monitoring of a bunch of cities. And the levels have actually gone down quite a bit in the last 24 hours -- now there are no sites over 1000 nGy/hr (~1 microSv/hr). (Of course, that's affected a lot by the wind direction too.)

This is a new development: they're trying to get power lines from Touhoku Electric Co. set up to the reactor in the hopes that they can restore power to the emergency cooling system. (Source: asahi.com)
posted by Jeanne at 10:57 AM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

rainy, I concur.
posted by exogenous at 10:57 AM on March 16, 2011

Thank you zippy, that changes things significantly.

In the Nuclear Tourist table, it's not clear to me if the 183kg/200kg figure listed for U and UO2 is an "either/or" or an "and." If it is an "either/or" it would tend to support zippy's figure of .2t/ass'y.

REVISIONS

calculated at 391kg	
UNIT	in tons
1	125.95
2	253.19
3	221.71
4	337.73
5	408.04
6	377.85

total	1724.47
total at 1-4	938.58

EST MCI, 1-4	143.71

calculated at 200kg	
UNIT	in tons
1	64.37
2	129.41
3	113.32
4	172.62
5	208.56
6	193.12

total	881.4
total at 1-4	479.72

EST MCI, 1-4	73.45

The Alvarez paper considers releases ranging from 3.5 to 35 MCi. These ranges are double the largest in the paper to four times the size.

That's sufficiently large that I don't think I can extrapolate from ignorance regarding plume sizes. The graphic is on page 11 of the paper and the two charts do not share a scale (Tufte wept).

SO TO SUMMARIZE: still don't know shit. A solid citation of the units in the fuel-pool census would be helpful.
posted by mwhybark at 10:57 AM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

I think the numbers that I quoted earlier were for the number of spent fuel *assemblies* rather than spent fuel *rods*. Sorry for the mistake.
posted by Jeanne at 11:09 AM on March 16, 2011

Truther tinfoil hat brigade is off to the races. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable to have my concerns aligned with theirs.

Infowars.com -- Alert: Fukushima Coverup, 40 Years of Spent Nuclear Rods Blown Sky High

They use these numbers:

each reactor building pool holds 3,450 fuel rod assemblies and the common pool holds 6,291 fuel rod assemblies. Each assembly holds sixty-three fuel rods. In short, the Fukushima Daiichi plant contains over 600,000 spent fuel rods – a massive amount of radiation that will soon be released into the atmosphere.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:10 AM on March 16, 2011

Nuclear Energy Institute: A single fuel assembly for a boiling water reactor (BWR) is approximately 14.5 feet high and weighs approximately 704 pounds. (319kg).

Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Assembly Waste Volume and Weight Estimation for 63,000 MTU gives the initial mass of uranium per assembly as .200MTU for a GE 2/3 8x8 assembly in a BWR. I believe MTU here means 'metric tonne uranium' or 1000kg uranium, or 200kg/assembly.
posted by zippy at 11:17 AM on March 16, 2011

Mods, is there a way to downlink from my original (mis)infogasm post to the correction? It's super easy to miss stuff in here and my original conclusion is almost certainly wrong.
posted by mwhybark at 11:18 AM on March 16, 2011

saulgoodman: "excluding core criticality,

But can we exclude core criticality? Hasn't there been some concern about the possibility of so-called 'recriticality' of the fuel rods in the pool and criticality in the other reactors"

I excluded it not because it's possible/not possible, but because I was only attempting to analyze the fuel-pool issue.
posted by mwhybark at 11:20 AM on March 16, 2011

zippy: "Nuclear Energy Institute: A single fuel assembly for a boiling water reactor (BWR) is approximately 14.5 feet high and weighs approximately 704 pounds. (319kg).

Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Assembly Waste Volume and Weight Estimation for 63,000 MTU gives the initial mass of uranium per assembly as .200MTU for a GE 2/3 8x8 assembly in a BWR. I believe MTU here means 'metric tonne uranium' or 1000kg uranium, or 200kg/assembly."

That's definitive enough, I think. The corresponding figures for fuel-pool quantities and such are the second set in my second post, although I was calculating to English tons and therefore my tonnages will be slightly higher than if I had done so on MTUs:

calculated at 200kg	
UNIT	in tons
1	64.37
2	129.41
3	113.32
4	172.62
5	208.56
6	193.12

total	881.4
total at 1-4	479.72

EST MCI, 1-4	73.45

posted by mwhybark at 11:25 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

So it would appear that:
1-All claims regarding the worst case being something local and contained are in fact totally wrong. Worst case is much worse than so called experts have lead us to believe. The situation is so complex that the designers can't possibly have accounted for emergent complexity (this hey this is a Black Swan event, so sorry I snarked earlier).
2-The claim that this won't possibly be a Chernobyl scale event is wrong. Despite our supposedly safer reactor designs, our design wasn't safe enough.
3-The smartest nuclear engineers from around the world are trying to figure some Apollo 13 style fix it solution, with much of Northern Japan riding in the crew module going around the moon. This leaves the rest of us to panic.
4-Other nuclear plants arn't looking so healthy, but we'll worry about that later.
5-The US has 23 of these plants some of which are in seismically active areas. We are also going to worry about that later.
posted by humanfont at 11:26 AM on March 16, 2011 [9 favorites]

As far as InfoWars goes, they take solid data from a TEPCO Powerpoint presentation and then hyperventilate all over it. Their concerns are legit, the TEPCO PP appears to be what it says it is, but I'm getting tired of seeing that "Chernobyl on steroids" thing cited as if it were a useful point from which to enter discussion on what TEPCO is and is not telling us.

InfoWars also says "Earlier today, a report was issued indicating that over 70% of these spent fuel rods are now damaged – in other words, they are emitting radiation or will soon."

Well, an LA Times article isn't a report, and what it does say is nothing like what the InfoWars guy is claiming:

Meanwhile, Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said an estimated 70% of the nuclear fuel rods have been damaged at the No. 1 reactor and 33% at the No. 2 reactor.

Also, I am allergic to Alex Jones; he is not the most reliable publisher of solid information on major news events, to put it mildly. InfoWars may be slightly less breathless and fatalistic than Prison Planet, but it's still an Alex Jones production and thus to be eyed very critically.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 11:30 AM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Are infowars correct about there being 63 rods per assembly?
posted by memebake at 11:30 AM on March 16, 2011

fairytale: yeah I noticed that too: Infowars makes out 70% of the spent fuel pool rods are damaged, but the report they cite is talking about the reactor core rods.
posted by memebake at 11:32 AM on March 16, 2011

Are infowars correct about there being 63 rods per assembly?
Yes, it would appear so.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:32 AM on March 16, 2011

Also, I am allergic to Alex Jones; he is not the most reliable publisher of solid information on major news events, to put it mildly. InfoWars may be slightly less breathless and fatalistic than Prison Planet, but it's still an Alex Jones production and thus to be eyed very critically.

I'm right there with you.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:33 AM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Is it also true that this particular facility, known to use one of the oldest, riskiest reactor designs still in production, has surreptitiously been used as a sort of depot for spent fuel rods from all over the place? That part can't be right, can it?
posted by saulgoodman at 11:33 AM on March 16, 2011

Humanfront, I think that this, unfortunately, a fair summary. I am not sure about (2), but the rest, yes.

There are solutions to the cooling pool problem - dry cask storage being one that allows for purely passive cooling. This is used to a limited extent on site at Fukushima. However the cost of storage I believe is much higher. Now, however, we are seeing that the use of cooling pools has a high potential cost as well.
posted by zippy at 11:34 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

snuffleupagus wrote: "There's an NRC report that suggests the same thing is being done in US facilities, given the lack of long term alternate facilities."

I won't go on at length, but plutonium has a much higher rate of decay than uranium does, so "spent" MOX fuel will naturally generate more heat than "spent" LEU fuel.
posted by wierdo at 11:34 AM on March 16, 2011

humanfont, worst case is much worse than we'd been lead to believe, but still not as bad as Chernobyl. I'm not sure that "not as bad as Chernobyl" is something for us to aspire to though as far as reactor design goes.
posted by atrazine at 11:34 AM on March 16, 2011 [9 favorites]

Are infowars correct about there being 63 rods per assembly?

The arrangement and number of rods varies by reactor. Fukushima-1 Unit-1 uses a 7x7 array, with some of those rods being non-fuel.
posted by zippy at 11:35 AM on March 16, 2011

Looking at the assembly numbers in that PDF - approx 700 spent fuel assemblies are generated each year, and on site they have 10,149 assemblies, which is about 14.5 years. Great, a 14.5 year backlog of spent fuel being kept on site. 639,387 fuel rods.
posted by memebake at 11:36 AM on March 16, 2011

..with some of those rods being non-fuel...
Thanks, I was curious about that.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2011

I'll add that all the (few) papers I've skimmed on what happens when spent fuel pools go wrong are filled with theory and assumptions with large uncertainties. It is possible that these papers give worst case scenarios that cannot occur in practice. Unfortunately, we're getting to see the experiment run now.
posted by zippy at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

atrazine: if the reports are true about the "spent" fuel rods potentially reaching criticality, and the reports about how this site apparently housed far more of those fuel rods than anyone previously realized are true, i'm not sure the "not as bad as Chernobyl" thing is a given. It's definitely not that bad yet, in terms of radiation dispersal. But I'm not sure we can say it won't be as bad or worse, in a couple of edge scenarios that are know within the realm of possibility.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

^Ah, ok, maybe fewer rods then. But the assembly numbers are correct.
posted by memebake at 11:39 AM on March 16, 2011

ugh. 'know'-->'now'

Any actual experts care to correct me (please)? eriko? Popular Ethics?
posted by saulgoodman at 11:40 AM on March 16, 2011

That post is wrong on many, many levels.

So it would appear that:
1-All claims regarding the worst case being something local and contained are in fact totally wrong. Worst case is much worse than so called experts have lead us to believe. The situation is so complex that the designers can't possibly have accounted for emergent complexity (this hey this is a Black Swan event, so sorry I snarked earlier).

No questioning that this has gotten worse than anybody thought possible. Many, many things have gone unexpectedly wrong. I don't see where you're going with this...holding your hands up and screaming isn't going to help anything.

2-The claim that this won't possibly be a Chernobyl scale event is wrong. Despite our supposedly safer reactor designs, our design wasn't safe enough.

Also wrong. Obviously, the design wasn't safe enough (and we knew the Mark I reactors had some flaws), but there's zero chance of a month-long graphite fire like we saw at Chernobyl, and an uncontained explosion of the core also seems very unlikely. They are still miles apart.

Newer designs (ie. the ABWR) are safer, and these reactors should have been either retrofitted or retired. There's really no excuse for why the hydrogen venting systems were not retrofitted once that flaw was discovered.

The latest concern, of course, is the spent fuel pool.

3-The smartest nuclear engineers from around the world are trying to figure some Apollo 13 style fix it solution, with much of Northern Japan riding in the crew module going around the moon. This leaves the rest of us to panic.

Unless you live in northeastern Japan, you do not have reason to panic. It is safe to say at this point that there will be no magic Apollo 13-style fix. Workers will die trying to fix this, and the fix will not be made overnight.

4-Other nuclear plants arn't looking so healthy, but we'll worry about that later.

Cite please? That's the first I'm hearing about this.

5-The US has 23 of these plants some of which are in seismically active areas. We are also going to worry about that later.

The tsunami appears to have been the main culprit here, which took the cooling systems offline, and prevented the easy restoration of backup power. The hydrogen explosions (again, that damn venting system) basically made further repairs and recovery impossible once they happened (and also likely set off the chain of events going on at Reactor 4). I haven't heard many reports of damage from the quake itself.

Also, from my understanding, the Mark-1 reactors in the US have been retrofitted with proper hydrogen venting systems. Horray for a responsible regulatory climate!
posted by schmod at 11:43 AM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

I am somewhat sorry I dropped the Josef Oehmen link (which was brought to my attention by another MeFite elsewhere) and then ran, but this post has been kind of an .... uncontrolled chain reaction, or something.

I don't like the terms of the 'debate' over nuclear power as they've historically been defined and now. It seems to me that harms discussions consistently fail to take into account harms-over-time. So a few dozen Chernobyl firefighters died, therefore the cost of Chernobyl was a few dozen lives. Uh, wrong. There is an exclusion zone where it's not prudent to live there. There's a delayed impact of the people getting cancer, and the children born with birth defects, and then the increase in the background radiation of Europe and the rest of the world that is on top of the normal background rate of radiation (which, because of the degrading of atmospheric ozone, is going up anyway).

This post, I am sure, can be easily pigeonholed as "it's another anti-nuke nut who thinks we should use coal, instead!" which is where my position is often put by the apologists. And when it comes to alternatives I don't know, frankly, which way to go. I just want an honest assessment of the harms over time. Plume release, fine. Groundwater contamination, though, how long would that make the area uninhabitable? How big an area? Why is no one talking about that in the scenarios they are discussing?
posted by norm at 11:45 AM on March 16, 2011 [6 favorites]

The US has 23 of these plants some of which are in seismically active areas. We are also going to worry about that later.

While we do, in fact, have 23 GE BWR-3 units, I am not so sure that our response to this disaster is all about "later." This thread avoids public policy discussions because we're trying to get a grip on the news and the science and keep it non-fighty-- but this thread is not the NRC offices, is not the White House, is not Los Alamos, is not any one of a number of concerns in the United States who are probably closely monitoring Fukushima Daiichi, compiling reports, running simulations, and waiting for events to evolve to the point where they can see a clear path to take regarding existing BWRs in the US.

Also, what schmod says. If there's a Mark I reactor unit in the US that does not have appropriate H2 venting and torus modifications, it's not going to stay that way for long after this. It would be disastrous for whoever owns it.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 11:46 AM on March 16, 2011

The US has 23 of these plants some of which are in seismically active areas.

The most vulnerable U.S. nuclear plants? They may surprise you. -- "So much for San Andreas Fault. Several reactors in the East, South and Midwest are most at risk from quakes."
posted by ericb at 11:51 AM on March 16, 2011

4-Other nuclear plants arn't looking so healthy, but we'll worry about that later.

Cite please? That's the first I'm hearing about this.

He may have read this scare piece that MSNBC put up this morning.
posted by smoothvirus at 11:54 AM on March 16, 2011

fairytale: I would start with making sure there's enough generators with proper cable connections, tested regularly and protected from whatever natural disasters are possible in a given area; whether it's a mark I or mark III or perhaps even newer designs.
posted by rainy at 11:54 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Where are the actual resident experts right now (well, probably busy being useful somewhere)? No disrespect meant, Schmod, but as confident as you are/seem of what you're saying, I don't think you're necessarily qualified to make authoritative claims. I'd feel less like we were just engaging in back-and-forth speculation and wankery on this topic of potential severity if some of those with special expertise in the field would chime in on what the full range of possibilities appears to be from this point. For that matter, I don't think the comparisons on either side to Chernobyl are useful or helpful, except in terms of their PR impact. I don't give a damn about the PR impact, personally. But if everyone broadly starts accepting as the conventional wisdom that "this cant be as bad as X" when that really isn't necessarily true, that's going to make it harder for people to assimilate the truth later. That's why I'm suspicious of definitive claims about the severity either way.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:56 AM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

This NPR piece has a diagram of the reactors showing where the spent fuel pool is in relation to the core. If you cross reference the scaffolding at the top of the diagram with the scaffolding shown in the photo, you can see how high up the pools are. Also you can see how badly damaged reactor-buildings 3 and 4 are (they are the two in the right of the photo, further from the camera).
posted by memebake at 11:57 AM on March 16, 2011

schmod, with all due respect, we're no longer talking about core explosions or meltdowns, we're talking about spent fuel pools catching fire. Here, we do not know what will happen, but the fuel involved appears to be more than that at Chernobyl. The mechanism of dispersal here is different and poorly understood.
posted by zippy at 12:01 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

an update to those power lines Jeanne mentioned earlier:

18.40 The operator of Japan's tsunami-crippled nuclear plant says it has almost completed a new power line that could restore electricity to the complex and solve the crisis that has threatened a meltdown.
Tokyo Electric Power Co. spokesman Naoki Tsunoda said the power line to Fukushima Dai-ichi is almost complete. Officials plan to try it "as soon as possible" but he could not say when.
The new line would revive electric-powered pumps, allowing the company to maintain a steady water supply to troubled reactors and spent fuel storage ponds, keeping them cool.

posted by yeoz at 12:03 PM on March 16, 2011 [6 favorites]

TOKYO — "The operator of Japan’s tsunami-crippled nuclear plant says it has almost completed a new power line that could restore electricity to the complex and solve the crisis that has threatened a meltdown."
posted by clavdivs at 12:03 PM on March 16, 2011

Hopefully none of these storage pools are as short of water as we are fearing. But keeping a large pool of water full on the 3rd/4th floor of a damaged building (that also contains a nuclear reactor) doesn't sound too easy.

Someone needs to call International Rescue, or failing that, a USA warship, I guess, which might be able to provide some remote controlled helicopters or robots or whatever.
posted by memebake at 12:04 PM on March 16, 2011

From the bbc:

1859: More from NRC chair Gregory Jaczko. He told Congress: "We believe that secondary containment has been destroyed and there is no water in the spent fuel pool and we believe that radiation levels are extremely high which could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures."
posted by pixie at 12:04 PM on March 16, 2011

Do not follow Alex Jones for information on this. Anyone who makes a film like this or runs a website calling fluoridation "the scam of the century" or thinks that the government creates gay people or thinks that the New World Order will soon emerge and their plan is to exterminate 80% of the population is a nutjob. You'd have better luck getting reasonable information about this crisis from a coconut.

And thank you schmod for writing the comment I was trying to frame on humanfont's points.
posted by zachlipton at 12:05 PM on March 16, 2011 [6 favorites]

...although there does appear to be continuing uncertainty about the cores themselves, including what may be two containment breaches at (IIRC, please correct) #2.
posted by mwhybark at 12:06 PM on March 16, 2011

This NPR piece has a diagram...

Well, that's one hell of a way to cook a hot dog.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:08 PM on March 16, 2011

So how credible is the power line plan here as a solution to this? It was my understanding that they had already brought in generators from offsite and that they weren't helping. Stopping this whole mess can't be as simple as just plugging the plants back in. If there is no water in the spent fuel pool as the NRC chair said above, would the plant's systems be able to do anything the water cannon can't? I suppose we don't know until we try and it's better than nothing, but I'm curious if anyone has any educated guesses.
posted by zachlipton at 12:11 PM on March 16, 2011

Apparently US aerial drones have been flying over Japan for a few days to assist in coordinating rescue efforts. Today comes news that they also do flyovers of the damaged reactors to get a better idea of conditions.
posted by anigbrowl at 12:11 PM on March 16, 2011

its a bit odd that flying a high-altitude plane over the site counts as 'getting a closer look'.
posted by memebake at 12:13 PM on March 16, 2011

Interesting CNN video about the health risks from various radiation levels.
posted by delmoi at 12:15 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I by no means pretend to be an authority or confident in what I am saying, and I'm scared shitless about what's happening with the spent fuel pools. I'm pretty sure I communicated that in my post, and elsewhere in this thread. However, I do have a scientific background, and feel that I can competently interpret what has been reported by the press, and in this thread.

I was responding to humanfont's post, which was about the reactors, was grossly misinformed, and overtly panicky in tone.

If the situation gets "worse than Chernobyl," it will get "worse than Chernobyl" in a completely different way. It's worth mentioning that we're currently working in a situation that was beyond anybody's wildest imagination.

(Similarly, I cannot stress enough that the "poorly understood" situation with the spent fuel does not necessarily translate to "doomsday scenario" as many seem to be doing.)

If you have a problem, take it to MeTa. Phrases like "No disrespect meant" and "with all due respect" do not necessarily make your comments respectful or constructive. You're welcome to correct or debate what I said in my post, but the passive-aggressive tone does not contribute to the conversation.
posted by schmod at 12:15 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

memebake: spy planes have good cameras and infrared sensors.
posted by rainy at 12:15 PM on March 16, 2011

The Global Hawk has a .3 meter resolution mode for single spot imaging, when flying at 21,000 meter. It's not clear from the spec sheet if flying it lower would help or just mean you were out of it's focusable range.
posted by nomisxid at 12:19 PM on March 16, 2011

its a bit odd that flying a high-altitude plane over the site counts as 'getting a closer look'.

Maybe not technically closer but "a better angle without killing the viewer" is a pretty useful thing right now.
posted by msalt at 12:20 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Probably too late for this situation, but disaster planning for all other nuclear plants should probably be revised to include "Move spent fuel rods at accident site apart from each other and preferably off-site," very high on the list.
posted by msalt at 12:22 PM on March 16, 2011

Somebody mentioned Haruki Murakami upthread. It reminded me of this piece he wrote for the NYT regarding how 9/11 impacted the human imagination. I wonder if this event will have a similar 'realignment' as he describes it.
posted by angrycat at 12:25 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

If there is no water in the spent fuel pool as the NRC chair said above, would the plant's systems be able to do anything the water cannon can't? I suppose we don't know until we try and it's better than nothing, but I'm curious if anyone has any educated guesses.

Well, the plant's systems are what normally keep those pools full of water, so if they're intact and just not able to be operated because of lack of site power, it might be very useful to get them powered up again.

There are, generally speaking, all kinds of different ways that water sources and water requirements can be connected together within a nuclear plant, including (usually) taking water directly from the ocean, river, or lake that the plant is built beside. The idea is to have all kinds of fallback options available for various things in case of an emergency like this. Some of those pumps are really big and deliver water faster than any reasonably portable equipment that could be brought in. Plus the pipes are already in place, so you don't need people to go near the pool to drop hoses in it or anything.

There are usually even a few pumps that can be operated without any electrical power at all, but the ones they need right now are electric. The reason for having multiple diesel generators on-site and considered to be critical safety items is that you really, really need electrical power, and lots of it, to the plant to handle emergencies that go on for any significant length of time.

So it's not a crazy idea at all, provided that lack of power is the main reason the plant's pumps are not working. If the equipment or piping is damaged, then it's another story.
posted by FishBike at 12:26 PM on March 16, 2011

Well what they said is that it has a really good infrared camera that should be able to help figure out what's going on temprature wise
posted by delmoi at 12:26 PM on March 16, 2011

couple stray thoughts on the Alvarez paper.

1. I did find a citation in the paper that established they were using metric tons, which makes sense.

2. the parametric range they selected for dispersal is described as 10%-100% of potential waste-pool fuel dispersal, thus their dispersal figures can be roughly applied to the current situation for from 5%-50% of the amounts we're estimating here.

I have updated this chart to include individual estimated MCi potential, 5-50% ranges, AND updated the total tonnages to reflect metric tons.

calculated at 200kg				
UNIT	in t	est MCI	5%	50%
1	58.4	4.87	0.24	2.44
2	117.4	9.78	0.49	4.89
3	102.8	8.57	0.43	4.29
4	156.6	13.05	0.65	6.53
5	189.2	15.77	0.79	7.89
6	175.2	14.6	0.73	7.3

total	799.6
total at 1-4	435.2

EST MCI, 1-4	66.63

5% Mci	3.33
50% Mci	33.32

I guess the next thing is to see how to get conversions for MCi to Seiverts, if that even makes sense
posted by mwhybark at 12:27 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

If you have a problem, take it to MeTa. Phrases like "No disrespect meant" and "with all due respect" do not necessarily make your comments respectful or constructive. You're welcome to correct or debate what I said in my post, but the passive-aggressive tone does not contribute to the conversation.

Whoa--no need for all that, please! I'm just trying to say that I'm personally more interested in hearing from someone in the field on this subject. The "all due respect" was meant to be taken at face value, not ironically or as a backhanded dismissal of your POV. I respect your take for what it is, but when it comes to interpreting media accounts, I trust my own judgment pretty well on that count and am a rather technically inlined person myself (being a developer/software engineer). My main point was only that I'd like to hear from eriko, Popular Ethics or some of the other folks actually in this field because we haven't heard from them in a while now. Presumably, the engineers tackling this crisis need to be fully aware of what the absolute worst edge case scenarios are now in order to avoid them. I'm still curious to know what the worst case impacts of those edge scenarios might be.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:36 PM on March 16, 2011

Having no clue about the actual situation, the French and German's advice to their citizen to leave Tokyo is the single piece of information I find most worrying.
posted by dhoe at 12:36 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

At this point, I advocate 'junk shot'.
posted by mazola at 12:43 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

"If there's a Mark I reactor unit in the US that does not have appropriate H2 venting and torus modifications, it's not going to stay that way for long after this. It would be disastrous for whoever owns it."

While I think nuclear power is a reasonable solution to our power needs, given all other realistic options, I also think the above claim is wildly naive. What we are seeing play out here, and what we saw play out with Deepwater Horizon, and what we saw with levies in New Orleans, and the banking collapse, and ....... on and on, is the inevitable ability of government and industry to TOTALLY FUCK IT UP.

"It would be disastrous for whoever owns it" is not a reason to believe it will be taken care of. Rather it's a reasonable clue that it will happen.

The Fukushima disaster is the price we pay for our modern lifestyle. Straight up. And those in power, government and industry, are functionally incapable of making it safe.

"It would be disastrous for whoever owns it." No. Those people are rich. And they know from past experience that even in a crisis that kills thousands or destroys economies, few will even see the inside of a courtroom let alone a jail cell. They are busy buying shoes in Manhattan, or being wined and dined by lobbyists, or hiking the Appalachian trail.

I have faith that these people mean well, and honestly try to not be as worthless and inept as they turn out to be. Still, at the end of the day, some moron decided it was a good idea to put tons of hot nuclear fuel up on the roof in a pool of water in an eathquake zone. And some other moron decided to approve that. And yet another moron decided..... and on and on until we are sitting around wondering what happens to tons of spent fuel rods when they go uncooled on the roof of a building.

Here in California we've already decided we can't pay for much of anything, because paying taxes a bad idea. I think it's safe to assume that San Onofre will go pear shaped sooner or later as we eventually decide all this fancypants regulation just costs too much. Because, as we know, industry will take care of it. Doing otherwise would be disastrous for whoever owns it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:43 PM on March 16, 2011 [11 favorites]

Having no clue about the actual situation, the French and German's advice to their citizen to leave Tokyo is the single piece of information I find most worrying.

That may just be cautiousness.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:44 PM on March 16, 2011

Which means Yucca Mountain. But that's a whole 'nother argument.

I don't think so, I think that this fuel is still way too hot to be inerted and dry casked. Even if Yucca Mountain was operational, fuel would stay onsite until it cooled.
posted by atrazine at 12:48 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

(and by cooled I mean decayed, for "hot" read radioactive)
posted by atrazine at 12:48 PM on March 16, 2011

You're welcome to correct or debate what I said in my post

I apologize for the tone, but if you were addressing the potential for harm from this event, then what you said is not supported by studies upthread on the potential outcome from the burning of the spent fuel pools of four reactors, containing (est.) over 400 metric tons of spent, very dirty fuel.

So I think then it is irresponsible to say 'this is not Chernobyl.' The mechanism may be different, but we do not know now whether or not the outcome will be comparable. It is possible, given models of burning spent fuel assemblies, to have a large long-term exclusion zone from this event.
posted by zippy at 12:49 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

I hope if anything good comes of this it is to recalibrate the risk-benefit analysis used for nuclear projects. Yucca Mountain is a great example. It's a) a volcano, that last erupted a mere 80,000 years ago; b) on a fault line, recently enough discovered that the seismic potential is more or less unknown; and c) in an area where the rainfall and groundwater levels have fluctuated wildly in the recent geological past. And this is supposed to be a long-term plan? Generational hubris.
posted by norm at 12:51 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

I suppose another obvious next step is looking at the NRC rebuttal to Alvarez to see if they take issue with the dispersal model. The Alvarez paper also cites an NRC precursor study on spent-fuel fire dispersal and that citation seems cogent as well.
posted by mwhybark at 12:52 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

some moron decided it was a good idea to put tons of hot nuclear fuel up on the roof in a pool of water in an eathquake zone

It's been said above/earlier in this thread that one of the reasons the spent fuel pools are so close to the reactor is because there are safety issues with moving spent fuel from the reactor to some distant location for storage. It is safer to have a crane lift the fuel from the reactor, swing over to the spent fuel pool, and deposit the spent fuel in one motion than to have a several-stage operation that introduces other risks for the day-to-day operations of the reactor.

So I think calling the engineers who made that decision "morons" -- and implying that they were mindless bureaucrats, no less -- is a bit facile. In retrospect, yes, the proximity of the spent fuel pools has created a lot of problems. But I don't think it's entirely correct to suggest that what might have been a "best of all options considered" solution was really just some dumb paper-pusher's failure to consider the consequences.
posted by devinemissk at 12:52 PM on March 16, 2011 [12 favorites]

AP is reporting a worryingly cryptic comment by Greg Jaczko, chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

US nuclear agency chief says no more water in spent fuel pool at troubled Japan plant.
posted by rainy at 12:53 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Trust me, I'm speaking coldly and viciously of how financially disastrous it would be for the company owning an unmodified GE BWR-3 Mk I reactor, if there are any left in the US.

Also, I misspoke when I said "23 BWR-3 units," and I apologize. There are only six reactors of that exact (GE BWR-3 Mk I) design in the country; the other 17 units cited in the MSNBC article are BWR-2 or BWR-4 designs. As has been said before in the thread, the BWR-3 is particularly poorly-designed; I do not know how far that statement applies to the BWR-2 or BWR-4. (My nuke geek's kid is in the hospital; he's understandably distracted.)
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 12:55 PM on March 16, 2011

Yeah, it sounds like the pool for reactor 4 is empty. That was reported about an hour ago on this liveblog

18.28 US warns that there is no water at reactor 4 of Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant, saying that radiation is "extremely high". The chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gregory Jaczko says:

Quote In addition to the three reactors that were operating at the time of the incident, a fourth reactor is also right now under concern. This reactor was shut down at the time of the earthquake..

"What we believe at this time is there has been a hydrogen explosion in this unit due to an uncovering of the fuel in the spent fuel pool," he said, noting the explosion happened several days ago but its effects were cause for concern.

"We believe that secondary containment has been destroyed and there is no water in the spent fuel pool and we believe that radiation levels are extremely high which could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures."

posted by delmoi at 1:01 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's been said above/earlier in this thread that one of the reasons the spent fuel pools are so close to the reactor is because there are safety issues with moving spent fuel from the reactor to some distant location for storage. It is safer to have a crane lift the fuel from the reactor, swing over to the spent fuel pool, and deposit the spent fuel in one motion than to have a several-stage operation that introduces other risks for the day-to-day operations of the reactor.

Right, but according to the numbers, they are keeping about 5 years worth of spent fuel right next to each reactor (3,450 assemblies in reactor unit storage, 700 added per year). Doesn't seem too smart. Maybe not the designers fault - they may have assumed fuel would be moved on - I guess its more the fault of the people who were supposed to find somewhere else to move this stuff to.
posted by memebake at 1:02 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

On a lighter note: I love how a good portion (from what I would have expected) of the commenters here have "a nuke geek" of their very own.
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:03 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Having no clue about the actual situation, the French and German's advice to their citizen to leave Tokyo is the single piece of information I find most worrying.

Well, for one thing, if they're tourists or short-stay business people they're potentially taking up resources that could be better allocated to people with no other country to go to.

Also makes me wonder, frankly, how hard it is for Japanese citizens to get into the US (or other countries). Visa requirements? Waivers? Will we see a big waive of Fallout Refugees in the west?
posted by anastasiav at 1:04 PM on March 16, 2011

Is "chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gregory Jaczko" piecing this together based on media reports (in which case he might have got his wires crossed) or does he have better info than us?
posted by memebake at 1:04 PM on March 16, 2011

On another lighter note, I love that "kayak across the Pacific Ocean" is a valid step in any Google Map involving a car and two points widely separated.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 1:06 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

"I think calling the engineers who made that decision "morons" [...] is a bit facile."

I would completely understand if people, especially nuclear engineers and folks involved in nuclear policy/regulation, dismiss my opinion as fully hyperbolic, and get all offended that I'm calling their colleagues morons. Still, here we are. Pick whatever adjective you want. But this is the work of morons, either individually or collectively, somewhere in the chain.

I live 40 miles from a nuclear power plant. Nothing I'm seeing is desuading me from my opinion that many of those in charge of making sure the plant doesn't kill me are well intentioned people who will screw it up. The word I choose is morons.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:09 PM on March 16, 2011

y6y6y6: except for the fact that you're still alive that is.
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:13 PM on March 16, 2011

Harvard School of Public Health is having a live forum webcast until 5pm ET discussing the complexities of the situation. May not load on first attempt.
posted by anigbrowl at 1:14 PM on March 16, 2011

But..... this was a 9.0 earthquake. The worst that has ever happened in Japan. Followed by a tsunami of nearly unimaginable damaging power. We can only prepare for so much. We're humans, and we're small and not so powerful compared to the planet as a whole. Sometimes, shit just happens, and it seems a bit unfair to make unsubstantiated judgments that a whole group of highly educated people are "morons." You genuinely don't believe that people in charge of dangerous materials don't understand the responsibility they're charged with? Some of those same people have been on the ground in very dangerous conditions doing their best to fix this situation for five days now.
posted by something something at 1:17 PM on March 16, 2011 [12 favorites]

No, it wasn't the worst ever. It's the worst measured. And those measurements have been in place for a ridiculously short amount of time. There was an earthquake and tsunami in the area in 1896 that killed 22,000 or so; that's incredibly recent. And if you look back over the last few thousand years there have undoubtedly been bigger ones. This is the problem I was talking about above: we puny humans think our lifetimes are long, but they are not, compared to the risks. Geological events can happen at intervals that are too long for most people to take seriously but they are just as real.
posted by norm at 1:25 PM on March 16, 2011 [11 favorites]

You're right, of course, but that doesn't take away from my point that we cannot be fully prepared for every eventuality. And that nuclear engineers are not morons, and are in fact quite interested in providing safe, stable technology.
posted by something something at 1:29 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Flaws in Japan’s Leadership Deepen Sense of Crisis -- "Never has Japan’s weak, rudderless system of governing been so clearly exposed or mattered so much."
posted by ericb at 1:33 PM on March 16, 2011

"You genuinely don't believe that people in charge of dangerous materials don't understand the responsibility they're charged with?"

I believe they understand it all much better than I do. And I think they take it all with due sense of responsibility and importance. And I believe that they will do what they can to try and keep me, and their own families, safe.

But I also believe that a series of people will make a series of decisions that will inevitably lead to nuclear power plants going totally and tragically FUBAR. As they have. Like for real. Now and in the past. We don't have to wonder if some seriously bad decisions at a nuclear plant will lead to them spewing radiation all over the landscape. We know with 100% certainty that they will. We have video.

The idea I was responding to was that industry would fix these problems, because not fixing them would be a bad idea. My assertion is that bad ideas appear to be unavoidable in this arena. Somewhere a choice had to be made - Do we build a disposal solution for the spent rods that might financially bankrupt us? Or do we store them indefinitely in a pool of water up on the roof in an earthquake zone?

I don't think any level of understanding about the responsibility is going to fix the inevitability of nuclear plants spewing radiation over the landscape. People will find a way to screw it up, which we are seeing, like for real. That's what I'm saying.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:35 PM on March 16, 2011

There will be plenty of blame to go around for the nuclear apocalypse. Engineers, politicians, bureaucrats, geologists, nuclear engineers, seawall makers, diesel engine installers, I bet there's enough for everyone. The bottom line is that this plant was not designed to handle what hit it. The lesson-- if we're into lesson processing yet-- is that "these things have to be designed to withstand that which could happen to them."
posted by norm at 1:35 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Interesting new update on Guardian's live blog:

7.49pm: Jaczko's worrying comments below (see 7.30pm) are at odds with reports from the Japanese media saying that coolant continues to be added into the Fukushima reactors.

According to the last report from the Jiji Press agency, posted nearly three hours ago, states:

[Tepco] kept working to pump seawater into the pressure vessels of the No 1, 2 and 3 reactors of the Fukushima No 1 nuclear plant. But the water levels have not reached the top of the nuclear fuel rods, and portions of the fuel rods thus remained exposed.

On the other hand, the discrepancy between the US and official Japanese position might explain why the US has told its citizens to maintain a 50 mile (80km) exclusion zone around Fukushima, compared with the 20 mile (30km) zone imposed by the Japanese government

It's being suggested here, apparently, that the US may believe the Japanese government is not being an honest information broker. Apparently, there's a history of that sort of thing in Japan.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:36 PM on March 16, 2011

something: it seems like everything snowballed from blackout and failed generators (because of tsunami). Blackout and failed generators could have happened for any number of reasons, even without a quake or tsunami. They were not prepared for this scenario, which is surprising and troubling to say the least.
posted by rainy at 1:37 PM on March 16, 2011

'Also makes me wonder, frankly, how hard it is for Japanese citizens to get into the US (or other countries). Visa requirements? Waivers? Will we see a big waive of Fallout Refugees in the west?"

There is a word that has been echoing in my head since last night, and that word is kindertransport. We may need to set one up. Send planes and ships, get the kids out of harm's way for six months or a year until the situation is under control.

I mean, if not the US, then who? I seriously doubt China or South Korea would step up, for a variety of historical and political reasons, even if they are geographically closer. And the US already has decent-sized Japanese-American and Japanese expat communities in the US that could take in refugees, I'm sure. Heck, a word or two from church officials and I bet the preppers in the Mormon communities or other groups would step up and do a great job.

I hope someone in the White House is thinking about this kind of thing. Radiation is bad for everyone, but especially children and pregnant women.

Also, thanks to the housing bubble and foreclosure problem, we actually have lots of empty homes right now in Sacramento, Riverside, Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc.
posted by Asparagirl at 1:38 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Thing is... there will always be the "worst ever earthquake", the "hurricane of the century", "the flood to end all floods" and so on. Indeed going forward we are likely to see ever increasing atmospheric based disasters as we plunger headlong into climate change.

Combine this with the assertion that the end product of making electricity is really about either making money, or saving money, which can be applied to any endeavor really. Which means there is pressure to circumvent or corrupt even the best, most well intentioned regulatory agency. That frankly is part of what being human is about. Thus you have a system I would ague strenuously that is near inevitable in producing disasters. And it happens at all levels. The difference is that a disaster with a nuclear power plant, or an offshore oil rig, is potentially so much more worse then a mine disaster or a wind farm collapsing.

We rely too much on technology to keep us safe, and sometimes that is ok. Yes, for instance, airplanes crash, but as horrible as that is no one pretends that an airplane is safe as safe can be and never goes wrong... and frankly a tragedy of that scale is pretty small. We take a knowing chance and the risk is small, but the disaster is small too. But, with nuclear stations, we are constantly reassured. Oh, this is safe and nothing will go wrong, we have the latest and best design we have your safety as our first concern.... I guarantee you that the most over engineered redundant system will fail if you make enough of them.

Shit happens, things fall apart. When things fall apart they should not poison hundreds of miles for decades upon centuries.
posted by edgeways at 1:38 PM on March 16, 2011 [11 favorites]

A friend of mine is a real-live nuclear powerplant engineer, and gave me permission to redistribute this:

I also posted this as a note on FB, and am sharing it here for anyone who doesn't see it there. Please feel free to cut-and-pate, copy, or otherwise share.

There's a lot of information, misinformation, and downright unfounded hype being thrown around about the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, and I'm hoping to clear up a good deal of that, using simple analogies. For those that don't know me (as I hope this will get shared and passed on), I am a nuclear reactor operator. I am not a self procalimed expert because I have a degree in disaster management or some other, non-technical BA, I am an operator. I have literally years of cumulative time sitting in front of a reactor control panel, operating in both transient and steady state conditions, as well as thousands of hours instructing future nuclear reactor operators, and I have grown tired of shaking my head at the wild stories and conjecture I see populating Facebook, The New York Times, CNN, and Fox News (yes, in efforts to gain ratings, they're all guilty - left, right, and other).

I am also not going to teach you "nuclear power for dummies" (although I could if you ask real nice). I am simply translating the facts at hand, in a method that even your kid brother could understand.

I've heard alot of mentioning of the accidents at Three Mile Island unit 2 and Chernobyl-4, being used as benchmarks. This is a difficult comparison as they are entirely different forms of accidents. But I will continue to use these as benchmarks after a brief explination of both.

Three mile island was a combination of material failure and operator error that resulted in a slight amount of potentially contaminated steam to be released to the environment. The valley that TMI happens to sit in routinely releases more natural contamination in the form of radon than was released by the plant that day. The reason it stands out in our minds as being so terrible is because, since the core was irreperably damaged, it ranks as the worst nuclear accident on US soil outside of a small handful of military experiments in the 40's and 50's. The fact is that zero people died as a result of the accident at Three Mile Island, zero people recieved any radiation greater than they would have from the sun had they spent the day at the beach instead, and zero people have suffered any long term effects from the accident (unless you count being fired as a long-term effect).

Chernobyl, on the other hand, was a worst case scenario. The plant was poorly designed to begin with: it operated under a set of phyics that is akin to driving a car with a front-end wobble, pulling this way and that, and requiring continuous operator effort to stay on the road. Then they turned off some safety systems, started maintenence, and ran casualty drills all at the same time. When control was lost, power spiked, and they initiated an emergency shutdown. Going back to the poor plant design, the emergency shutdown caused power to go up further before it went down. This last spike of power caused the water in the core to flash to steam at nearly 1000 F and 10,000 psi, thus rupturing the containment vessel and the building that house it, literally blowing radioactive materials thousand of feet into the air.

Given this, now picture the Three Mile Island accident as driving your car down the road. One of the guages on your dashboard starts behaving funny, so you take a closer look at it. While doing so, you veer off the road and collide with a telephone pole. Your seatbelt holds you in place, your airbag goes off, and your crumple-zones absorb the majority of the energy. You get out of your car, unscathed, and survey the damage. No one got hurt, but your car is beyond repair and must be junked for a new one.

Chernobyl would be more like driving a bus full of school children and deciding that the highway is too crowded, and that you could travel more effectively by moving over to the railroad. Once there, you find yourself playing chicken with a Conrail 12-engine, 450-car freight train moving at 60 mph. You try to stop by turning off the key, but find out that someone has rewired your key so that "off" slams the accelerator to the floor. Not only is there mass carnage from your bus slamming into the train, but the train then derails, sending tons of cargo through the surrounding urban areas and destroying everything in the damage path.

The accident at Fukushima Daiichi is like driving your car down the road when a strong, unforseen wind pushes you off the road into a railroad crossing sign. Your seatbelt again, does what it's supposed to do, your airbag deploys, and your crumple zones again absorb the majority of the impact. You get out of your car, again unscathed and survey the damage. Again, no one got hurt, but your car is totaled. You also notice that it's laying across the railroad tracks and realize that things could be far worse, but you get the 1-800-number from the crossing sign, call the dispatcher, and he informs you that the train only comes through once a week, and it just passed yesterday, so they only way to make it worse is by taking a complete lack of action, abandoning your car on the tracks rather than calling a tow truck sometime in the next six days.

Now, for perspective, in the grander scheme of the disaster in Northern Japan, your accident with the railroad crossing sign happened in downtown Manhattan (bear with me, it's hypothetical) during the 9/11 attacks (lets pretend for a moment that the planes were blown off course by the wind, rather than piloted by terrorists), and the wind that blew you off course was actually the debris from the collapsing buildings. In all of that tradgedy, your car accident seems quite insignificant, but it still makes for a sensational story when people keep asking how long until the train comes through to derail over your car.

posted by pjern at 1:39 PM on March 16, 2011 [20 favorites]

The only thing I said was:

If there's a Mark I reactor unit in the US that does not have appropriate H2 venting and torus modifications, it's not going to stay that way for long after this. It would be disastrous for whoever owns it.

That is a very specific statement about a specific set of conditions that may or may not exist in one or more of six reactor units in the United States of a very specific design.

Please stop holding up the "Fairytale's making raving laissez-faire capitalist" sign, y6. I understand your frustration and your anxiety-- I lived 40 miles from Seabrook Station growing up, myself-- but I'd really like it if you could represent what I said with more accuracy.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 1:39 PM on March 16, 2011

raving laissez-faire capitalist statements, christ
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 1:40 PM on March 16, 2011

saulgoodman: he was talking about spent fuel tank (just one), not the reactors.
posted by rainy at 1:41 PM on March 16, 2011

I saw that on the Guardian's blog, but it's more confusing than a questioning of dishonestly (not that everyone has been forthright here, but I'm talking about this specific case). My reading of the statements is that Jaczko is saying the #4 spent fuel pool has no water, while the Jiji report says that there is some water in the cores of reactors 1-3, but that parts of the rods are still exposed. They are two different situations: the spent fuel pool in reactor #4 and the cores in reactors 1-3. The two statements don't seem to be at odds to me at all.
posted by zachlipton at 1:41 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

That facebook thing seems to completely ignore the issue of the 5 years worth of spent fuel sitting next to each reactor.
posted by memebake at 1:42 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Live stream of the senate briefing by the NRC
posted by pixie at 1:42 PM on March 16, 2011

Thanks ericb, the NYT article is what I was talking about in my earlier long post.

Why I got started on that tack is due to being pointed towards this book, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enigma_of_Japanese_Power. The first part of the book goes on at great and tedious length about how impossible is can be to locate decisionmaking power in Japanese society.
posted by warbaby at 1:43 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Since Yucca Mountain and long-term spent fuel storage has arisen as a topic, this Sandia National Laboratories report about the challenge of *marking* the site of any permanent storage is just fascinating.

The problem isn't creating something permanent, it's creating something that will say "no, really, I'm not a buried treasure, I am bad" to anyone who might discover it in, say, 8,000 years.
posted by CaptApollo at 1:43 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

how the Military reads it: Pentagon preparing for a nuclear worst-case scenario at Fukushima
“We are right now closer to core-on-the-floor than at any time in the history of nuclear reactors,” said Kenneth Bergeron, a former Sandia National Laboratory researcher who spent his career simulating such meltdowns, including in reactors of the type at the Fukushima plant.
posted by adamvasco at 1:45 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

saulgoodman: he was talking about spent fuel tank (just one), not the reactors.

A ha! Good eye. The Guardian's just getting wooly-headed on this one, apparently. That would resolve the apparent conflict in the two statements without requiring any diplomatic intrigue.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:45 PM on March 16, 2011

I am not slamming any individual engineer or architect. Any large project involves tradeoffs of time, attention, and money. There have been safety studies for many different scenarios, even the one we're considering now.

It's possible that this plant, even with the events unfolding now, may cause fewer deaths than a coal powered plant of the same capacity.

That said, as organizations rather than as individuals, the designers, regulators, and operators of this reactor should not have thought it a good idea to store excess explosively flammable radioactive material in a poorly protected swimming pool several stories above ground, especially when any failure to keep that pool full of water could result in an event worse than the reactor core melting.

From the two papers on spent fuel pools (Alvarez and Brookhaven) the problems here could have just as well been caused by operator error as earthquake or tsunami. They are not specific to Fukushima post-quake. The Brookhaven study talks about one instance of operator error where a worker opened the wrong gate on the cooling pool and the water level dropped IIRC 20 feet. They also say that a crane operator error, dropping a ~ 300kg assembly for instance, could cause the pool level to drop suddenly.

And the bad news is, once the spent fuel is uncovered, that area is immediately lethal, so you don't get any easy second chances if, say, your regular cooling systems are down.

While it took a tsunami to cause this event, a tsunami is not required.
posted by zippy at 1:46 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

That facebook thing seems to completely ignore the issue of the 5 years worth of spent fuel sitting next to each reactor.

To be fair, I think he wrote it before that news was public.
posted by pjern at 1:47 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

There is a word that has been echoing in my head since last night, and that word is kindertransport. We may need to set one up. Send planes and ships, get the kids out of harm's way for six months or a year until the situation is under control.

I was actually thinking about this last night (in my head I was seeing the airlift of kids out of London during WWII), when a Mefite in Tokyo was talking about how she would leave the city with her child, but had nowhere to go.

I wonder if a twitter campaign of tweets @BarackObama would get anyone's attention?

(I realize this is veering into "should be in the other thread" territory)
posted by anastasiav at 1:49 PM on March 16, 2011

I mean, if not the US, then who? I seriously doubt China or South Korea would step up, for a variety of historical and political reasons, even if they are geographically closer.

China and South Korea have been more than forthcoming with regards to offering aid to Japan. It's, if anything, the very very small silver lining to come out of this crisis. The rivalry, if anything, is nowhere nearly as strong as it was believed to be.

Whether or not they'd accept such a big role remains to be seen, and it seems more likely that the Japanese government would refuse such an offer, as it'd make them look bad.

That all said... evacuating kids to Southern Japan makes a whole lot more sense from a logistical, linguistic, and cultural perspective. It's far enough to be safe under any circumstance.
posted by schmod at 1:50 PM on March 16, 2011

pjern: that whole post with analogies seems *waaaaaaay* out of date. Like monday-ish.
posted by rainy at 1:51 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

Harvard School of Public Health is having a live forum webcast until 5pm ET discussing the complexities of the situation.

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting webcast and discussion.

A valuable resource they point out: Harvard’s Center for Geographic Analysis has launched* a Japan Sendai Earthquake Data Portal.
posted by ericb at 1:51 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Oh, boy. That hearing is not going well either. Boxer and Feinstein are angry, and out for blood. This is way too soon to be holding hearings about our domestic plants. This issue is no more urgent today than it was a week ago. If this is the tone that will continue, nuclear energy is effectively dead in the US.

She's not even interested in answers. (Direct quote: "I don't want to know why") Just yelling. And a lot of it. NRC guy has no idea how to react, and she's asking him for "100% Certain" answers, which she should know are full well impossible to provide.

Really, really unimpressed with her leadership right now. This is a political leader in full-on panic mode.
posted by schmod at 1:51 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

NPR's coverage of the NRC announcement Delmoi mentioned above:

The chief of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Wednesday that all the water is gone from one of the spent fuel pools at Japan's most troubled nuclear plant, but Japanese officials denied it.

If NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko is correct, this would mean there's nothing to stop the fuel rods from getting hotter and ultimately melting down. The outer shell of the rods could also ignite with enough force to propel the radioactive fuel inside over a wide area

Jaczko did not say Wednesday how the information was obtained, but the NRC and U.S. Department of Energy both have experts on site at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex of six reactors. He said the spent fuel pool of the complex's Unit 4 reactor has lost water.

Jaczko said officials believe radiation levels are extremely high, and that could affect workers' ability to stop temperatures from escalating.

Japan's nuclear safety agency and Tokyo Electric Power Co., which operates the complex, deny water is gone from the pool. Utility spokesman Hajime Motojuku said the "condition is stable" at Unit 4.

Who do we believe?
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:52 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Fuck. Rand Paul's toilet rant was more coherent than this.
posted by schmod at 1:52 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Also makes me wonder, frankly, how hard it is for Japanese citizens to get into the US (or other countries). Visa requirements? Waivers?

Japan is a member of the visa waiver program; citizens can visit the US without a visa for up to 90 days. Japanese people in the US who face problems returning home but whose period of stay is running out are being offered a 30-day extension, but must visit an airport to get their passports updated.

In general, the US quickly waives or suspends the normal rules for citizens of countries beset by natural disaster or war. However, you should not rely on a MeFi comment for accurate information - this is a complex topic, so if in doubt check with your consulate and/or US government websites linked to above.
posted by anigbrowl at 1:53 PM on March 16, 2011

fairytale of los angeles - I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, and I see how it could obviously be taken that way. I apologize. You seem like a very smart and reasonable person to me. I was responding to what I see as an aggregate attitude that industry and government will fix these sorts of things.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:55 PM on March 16, 2011

From the two papers on spent fuel pools (Alvarez and Brookhaven) the problems here could have just as well been caused by operator error as earthquake or tsunami. They are not specific to Fukushima post-quake. The Brookhaven study talks about one instance of operator error where a worker opened the wrong gate on the cooling pool and the water level dropped IIRC 20 feet. They also say that a crane operator error, dropping a ~ 300kg assembly for instance, could cause the pool level to drop suddenly.

And this seems to be the real deciding factor on nuclear power's viability. Spent fuel is the problem. Long term storage questions have completely distracted the public debate from what seems like a much bigger practical question, which is the cool down period between use and dry storage. Even if you decide to reprocess, you still have to wait for cool down... That takes what, 5 years or more?
posted by Chuckles at 1:56 PM on March 16, 2011

Who do we believe?

I read that and then saw myself hearing that in the documentary about this years from now. I'm rooting for those working on this to somehow come through and as they say in the church, make a way out of no way.
posted by cashman at 1:57 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Thanks, y6. I appreciate your consideration and openness to my reply.

(And yeah, as far as the living-near-a-paranoia-source part... I got to read On the Beach in... sixth or seventh grade. For a class assignment. Way to stop dramatic, pubescent tweens from sleeping for a few weeks!)
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 1:58 PM on March 16, 2011

But I also believe that a series of people will make a series of decisions that will inevitably lead to nuclear power plants going totally and tragically FUBAR. As they have. Like for real. Now and in the past. We don't have to wonder if some seriously bad decisions at a nuclear plant will lead to them spewing radiation all over the landscape. We know with 100% certainty that they will. We have video.

I think you're over reacting. There are hundreds of nuclear power plants all over the world. There isn't a 100% guarantee that they will all blow up, and we don't know if the area is going to be scorched for hundreds of years after this either.

There's a lot of information, misinformation, and downright unfounded hype being thrown around about the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, and I'm hoping to clear up a good deal of that, using simple analogies....

That was... really uninformative.

7.49pm: Jaczko's worrying comments below (see 7.30pm) are at odds with reports from the Japanese media saying that coolant continues to be added into the Fukushima reactors.
...

[Tepco] kept working to pump seawater into the pressure vessels of the No 1, 2 and 3 reactors of the Fukushima No 1 nuclear plant. But the water levels have not reached the top of the nuclear fuel rods, and portions of the fuel rods thus remained exposed.

The U.S. guy was talking about the pools, not the reactor. So those statements are not actually contradictory.
posted by delmoi at 1:58 PM on March 16, 2011

So according to the comments above, there are 783 rods in the storage pool in Reactor 4. Although I'm wondering if its 783 assemblies, because that would better match the data in the PDF thats been going round. Assemblies have about 30 to 60 rods each apparently?
posted by memebake at 1:58 PM on March 16, 2011

it seems more likely that the Japanese government would refuse such an offer [of a kindertransport], as it'd make them look bad

Thereby saving face at the expense of thyroids, lungs, and bone marrow.

Unfortunately, I think you may be right.
posted by Asparagirl at 2:01 PM on March 16, 2011

memebake: yes, iirc, it's assemblies not rods.
posted by rainy at 2:02 PM on March 16, 2011

The French government is replenishing its stocks of iodine tablets in French overseas territories. Just as a precaution.
posted by gimonca at 2:02 PM on March 16, 2011

hwyengr: are you assuming that if zircalloy starts burning, temperature won't go further up or that if it's burning, fuel is not necessarily melted yet?
posted by rainy at 2:03 PM on March 16, 2011

The U.S. guy was talking about the pools, not the reactor. So those statements are not actually contradictory.
NPR's summary would seem to indicate that Japanese officials directly denied the NRC's assertion that the SFP @ No.4 has lost its water?
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:05 PM on March 16, 2011

That may be a from a "nuclear operator", pjern, but if he is, he's an idiot. An accident where three reactors are likely in partial meltdown, it's likely that the containment was breached on one of them, where one storage pool has probably boiled dry and two others are heating up and where it is taking the frantic effort of everyone involved for things to _not get worse_ is not equivalent to harmlessly wrecking your car on a track where a train won't come along for a week. Jesus, does he think we are idiots?

That kind of junk from the nuclear fanboys has helped moved me from a somewhat reluctant acceptor of a nuclear power to "if you can't turn it off and walk away without meltdown, you don't build it." Better get to researching thorium reactors and CANDU, nuke industry.

And no, this is not endorsement of the various "we should evacuate all children from Japan" or "we are going to get poisoned on the US West Coast" type fearmongering emails either. But it takes some real freaking nerve to write snotty stuff like that when the situation is not yet stable and there are some very nasty real worst outcomes if the fuel rods catch fire or the "non-zero" possibility of recriticality comes true.

With luck, the power cable will be restored, the electric pumps and pipes will not have been too badly damaged in the various explosions, and steady cooling will be restored to all units and pools and the situation will wind down with only the existing worker deaths and the limited radiation release so far. But it's more like the driver of the car is seriously injured and the passengers are stuck in the car and hoping that train coming down the track can manage to stop in time.
posted by tavella at 2:05 PM on March 16, 2011 [22 favorites]

I guess I was hoping that it couldn't get any hotter than the burning temperature. And the hot part of the rods wouldn't melt.
posted by hwyengr at 2:06 PM on March 16, 2011

That all said... evacuating kids to Southern Japan makes a whole lot more sense from a logistical, linguistic, and cultural perspective. It's far enough to be safe under any circumstance.

It does, except that Japan is a pretty small country, on an island (group). I can imagine a scenario where the available resources (food, fuel, heat, medical care) were under enormous stress, and the more people (especially a medically vulnerable population) the more you reduce the stress on the available resources.
posted by anastasiav at 2:08 PM on March 16, 2011

I mentioned upthread that one of the papers on fuel pool disasters said that the burning temperature of the Zircalloy coating was less than the melting point of the uranium fuel. If uranium doesn't melt, will that prevent it going critical?

Fundamentally, no, though it might reduce the likelihood. But that misses the real crisis.. If a pool is uncovered, that site becomes very hard to even go near. That could potentially lead to making the other reactors unapproachable. At the same time, if the pool is uncovered for some length of time, the cladding will burn. The combustion products of that cladding will be spread into the atmosphere and are extremely dangerous. So, even though the actual fuel will remain in the pool area, and probably remain sub critical, there is still a massive problem.

Anyway, that's my reading of it.
posted by Chuckles at 2:09 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

hwyengr: no, temperature will keep rising even faster when cladding is burning. If they don't start cooling real soon it'll start burning and burn for awhile and then melt.
posted by rainy at 2:10 PM on March 16, 2011

^ "Jaczko did not say Wednesday how the information was obtained, but the NRC and U.S. Department of Energy both have experts on site at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex of six reactors."

Ummm.... is this true? NCR and US DoE have people at the plant?
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:11 PM on March 16, 2011

I wouldn't be surprised, especially the NCR.
posted by edgeways at 2:13 PM on March 16, 2011

Thanks, Chuckles. I'm just hoping that as bad as the fire would be, it would still be better than having an uncontrolled uncontained fission reaction.

Rainy: I'm not sure that's the case. How can something get hotter than the temperature of the fire? What extra energy is going into the system?
posted by hwyengr at 2:15 PM on March 16, 2011

Ummm.... is this true? NCR and US DoE have people at the plant?

Well, they have US designed reactors coming apart, as well as the MOX fuel we've been trying to promote in one of them.

It was said US personnel were enroute 48 hours ago (or so) but I didn't see an agency breakdown.
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:15 PM on March 16, 2011

The smallest assemblies at Fukushima are 7x7 arrays of rods, a small number of which are not fuel. The storage numbers for spent fuel are given as assemblies, not rods.

An assembly for a boiling water reactor contains ~200kg^* of fuel.

* - varies based on the size and configuration of the assembly.
posted by zippy at 2:16 PM on March 16, 2011

Rainy: I'm not sure that's the case. How can something get hotter than the temperature of the fire? What extra energy is going into the system?

Um, did you miss that it's a nuclear fuel rod? The energy comes from decay of fission byproducts, so it's internally heated. The water needs to be there to keep it cool.
posted by delmoi at 2:17 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Via the Guardian blog:

The operator of Japan's tsunami-crippled nuclear plant says it has almost completed a new power line that could restore electricity to the complex and solve the crisis that has threatened a meltdown.

Tokyo Electric Power Co spokesman Naoki Tsunoda said early Thursday the power line to Fukushima Dai-ichi is almost complete. Officials plan to try it "as soon as possible" but he could not say when.

The new line would revive electric-powered pumps, allowing the company to maintain a steady water supply to troubled reactors and spent fuel storage ponds, keeping them cool.

Not heard anything about that before, but it sounds promising. Is the problem really just down to no power for the coolant pumps?
posted by EndsOfInvention at 2:17 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

hwyengr: the same energy that's heating them up. Decay energy. Temperature can go way higher than fire. Paper burns at 451F. If you put paper in the center of working reactor, it will be at thousands of F. In fact there's practically no limit to how high temperature can go.
posted by rainy at 2:19 PM on March 16, 2011

We rely too much on technology to keep us safe, and sometimes that is ok.

Brings to mind this recent article:

Certainties of Modern Life Upended in Japan.

posted by ericb at 2:20 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Thereby saving face at the expense of thyroids, lungs, and bone marrow.

Direct marrow toxicity would require doses in the whole Sievert range, which is not likely outside the immediate vicinity of the plant. Long-term, stochastic thyroid and lung cancer rates may be increased in an area surrounding the plant depending on the isotopes which have been or will be released, as was seen with Chernobyl. However, it has been repeatedly pointed out here and elsewhere that the dispersion pattern will be very different from that of Chernobyl, even in the worst case; the affected area will be much smaller.

So it makes the most sense for any radiation-induced relocation, if required, to happen internally: Japan is not the biggest country, but it is still large enough relative to the radiation- and tsunami-affected area to be able to internally absorb its refugees-- the limiting factor right now seems to be infrastructure damage at the disaster area(s), not the overall capacity of the country to aid displaced people. Remember also that this is an island: international transport will be bottlenecked by boats and planes, while people will likely be shuttled much more effectively internally by the existing train and rail networks.
posted by monocyte at 2:21 PM on March 16, 2011

US NC contradicts Japanese authorities assessments. That cannot be good in many ways.
NYTimes main article

(apologies if it was posted before)
posted by carmina at 2:21 PM on March 16, 2011

Thanks for the clarifications, folks. That's what I was wondering.

Probably shouldn't have scheduled Thermo as an 8AM lecture all those years ago...
posted by hwyengr at 2:22 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

I mentioned upthread that one of the papers on fuel pool disasters said that the burning temperature of the Zircalloy coating was less than the melting point of the uranium fuel. If uranium doesn't melt, will that prevent it going critical?

The assemblies, depending on how they are stored and how fresh the fuel is, can reach 2000C if uncovered, in one pessimistic scenario in the Brookhaven paper. Uranium oxide melts at 2865C (according to a random Google result).

I imagine that at these temperatures, with loss of cladding, hydrogen explosions, and possibly melting of the assembly itself, that the pellets of uranium, even well-below their melting point, could spill and form configurations other than the careful geometry in the fuel array. Same thing could happen if the fuel rods or control rods fell out of the assembly.
posted by zippy at 2:22 PM on March 16, 2011

Well, they have US designed reactors coming apart, as well as the MOX fuel we've been trying to promote in one of them.

Just FYI, the MOX fuel is supplied by Areva of France. France, Germany, Japan and the US (among others) all export nuclear technology, so although it is a GE reactor design we are not at fault for everything that is going wrong. There will be plenty of time for everyone to beat themselves up later as appropriate.
posted by anigbrowl at 2:25 PM on March 16, 2011

I am also not going to teach you "nuclear power for dummies" (although I could if you ask real nice).
Yeah but I think no thanks. I've seen the style. Traffic accident analogies for dummies. For crying out loud, do we need any real life analogies? What's going on in Japan right now, then, is it some kind of fairy tale or what?
posted by Namlit at 2:26 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

There have been numerous reports that the NRC has sent experts. Presumably they are at the command center with the plant operators and would only enter the plant itself if there was a compelling reason to do so. It's not as if anyone is spending much time at the plant; they are rotating in and out and monitoring their total radiation doses.
posted by zachlipton at 2:27 PM on March 16, 2011

Out of curiosity does anyone know what it takes to rad-harden robots? Obviously it's not a situation that even hardened current-generation bots are going to be super helpful in but down the line it would be nice to have something in between 'humans can fix it' and 'too hot to go near so we have to guess'.
posted by Skorgu at 2:29 PM on March 16, 2011

Dailytech editorial on MSNBC's latest piece of hyperbole. (yes I know. I'm sorry, it's just my opinion but that MSNBC article is just ridiculous.)
posted by smoothvirus at 2:30 PM on March 16, 2011

this was a 9.0 earthquake. The worst that has ever happened in Japan. Followed by a tsunami of nearly unimaginable damaging power. We can only prepare for so much. ... Sometimes, shit just happens, and it seems a bit unfair to make unsubstantiated judgments that a whole group of highly educated people are "morons." You genuinely don't believe that people in charge of dangerous materials don't understand the responsibility they're charged with?

If your statement represents their position, then they clearly don't understand the responsibility they're charged with. Nuclear power plants present a set of risks not found in nature or any other type of industry, in type and scale. Throwing up your hands and saying "Well, we planned for the worst likely scenarios, what are you gonna do, shit happens" is certainly irresponsible. If not moronic, then definitely obtuse and feckless.
posted by msalt at 2:33 PM on March 16, 2011 [8 favorites]

saulgoodman: if the reports are true about the "spent" fuel rods potentially reaching criticality, and the reports about how this site apparently housed far more of those fuel rods than anyone previously realized are true, i'm not sure the "not as bad as Chernobyl" thing is a given. It's definitely not that bad yet, in terms of radiation dispersal. But I'm not sure we can say it won't be as bad or worse, in a couple of edge scenarios that are know within the realm of possibility.

I no longer trust the "won't be as bad as Chernobyl" assertion either. Based on mwybark calculations, and zippy's reading of the Alvarez paper, if all the spent fuel pools were to burn completely, there exists the potential for this accident to release a comparable quantity of radionuclides into the atmosphere as Chernobyl.

That said, we haven't established that any, let alone all of the pools are (or were) on fire (although it sounds pretty likely at unit 4), nor can we assume that a zirc-steam reaction (and any attendant steam or hydrogen explosions) would transport as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as Chernobyl's graphite fires did. That's not giving me much comfort frankly. Keep watching the radiation measurements.
posted by Popular Ethics at 2:36 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

For crying out loud, do we need any real life analogies?

This shit is witchcraft to a lot of people, both in the US and abroad. Anything anyone can do to make it more comprehensible to those folks helps reduce panic and spread better information. I don't think it in any way trivializes the actual situation to compare it to things people already know about, although I'm not really sure automotive accidents are the most appropriate analogy the OP could've picked.

I'm also not sure if the OP had as much information as we do in this thread at the point when he or she wrote it.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 2:36 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

Eh, the daily tech article kind of sucked.

_{First, their report offers the hyperbole:}
_{It turns out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated the odds of an earthquake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant here. Each year, at the typical nuclear reactor in the U.S., there's a 1 in 74,176 chance that the core could be damaged by an earthquake, exposing the public to radiation. No tsunami required. That's 10 times more likely than you winning $10,000 by buying a ticket in the Powerball multistate lottery, where the chance is 1 in 723,145.}

_{First, all statistic chances are not created equally. There are 104 commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S. (69 pressurized water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors). That means there's roughly 1 in 742 chance per year of core damage -- or roughly 1 in 7.4 chance per century of such an incident at a single plant.

By contrast there are dozens of $10,000 "Powerball multi-state lottery" winners every year and will likely be thousands of winners per century. Thus the comparison itself is a bit puzzling.}

No, all probability measures are the same. That's the whole point. The odds of a plant's core being damaged is 10 times more likely then an individual ticket purchaser winning the power ball. It is true that there are a lot of power ball winners each year, but that's because there are a lot of tickets sold.

I stopped reading after that, not really worth continuing.
posted by delmoi at 2:38 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Also cold comfort: The fact that the winds at this site predominantly blow over a big F'n ocean means that any released radioactivity will probably have less consequence than Chernobyl.
posted by Popular Ethics at 2:39 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

zippy: so if I'm reading it right, they're saying that temperature should top out at 2000C and won't go further up because of temp exchange with, I guess, circulating air?

In the Brookhaven scenario the zircaloy burns at 900C and then the hot points in the array reach 2000C as convection is limited by storage techniques that may not be in use at Fukushima. In the study, radiation (of heat) sets the temperature limit, I believe.

But they also acknowledge that with debris in the pool - cladding, cement, who knows what, it's impossible to know for sure.
posted by zippy at 2:40 PM on March 16, 2011

zippy: so if I'm reading it right, they're saying that temperature should top out at 2000C and won't go further up because of temp exchange with, I guess, circulating air? That could well be true, I was mistaken then that it'll keep rising until it melts.

NO. Zirconium fire is just a secondary source of heat. Nuclear decay is the main source, the thing that led to the zirconium fire in the first place. The spent fuel already generates dangerous levels of heat, hence the cooling pond.

Are you thinking that the fuel needs to melt for fission to start up again? Also not true. Only proximity and lack of control rods are needed for criticality. Zirconium rods filled with solid uranium (or plutonium) pellets are where the fission in nuclear plants occurs. As the zirconium burns or melts, the fuel will naturally slump down together into a mass at the bottom of its pool (it's extremely heavy).

This is presumably why even the Japanese government said that "the chance of criticality is not zero." So it's already extremely hot, as spent fuel rods will be. The fire is making it hotter. And there is a real chance of renewed fission in a slag of molten waste fuel that could make it much much hotter yet.
posted by msalt at 2:41 PM on March 16, 2011

What's going on in Japan right now, then, is it some kind of fairy tale or what?

Dunno. Maybe we should ask the one from Los Angeles. I keed. I keed. ; )
posted by ericb at 2:42 PM on March 16, 2011

msalt: I do understand all of that. The report cited by zippy seems to say that at some temperature, the fuel will radiate so much that with some realistic air convection it will not heat further even though decay continues.
posted by rainy at 2:44 PM on March 16, 2011

rainy, I failed to answer your question accurately. Brookhaven looks IIRC at the maximum temperature of an array as a result of 1) being uncovered, and 2) the zircaloy catching on fire. They do not establish an upper bound for what happens after. Like msalt says, there's the potential for criticality, and there are also other things that can combust.
posted by zippy at 2:45 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Out of curiosity does anyone know what it takes to rad-harden robots?

The dumber the robot the better; A scrap-heap challenge type electric golf cart-ish deal with an umbilical is probably the best bet, maybe even driven by relays; it looks like even unhardened power MOSFETS can take some degree of radiation pounding but I don't know how the cumulative dosage would compare to that which you would see in the reactor buildings. More complicated control systems in the vehicle will probably get in trouble. As for sensors, there appear to be hardened CMOS cameras and such available too, but again it would be best to be controlling it from somewhere you could watch it without being irradiated. I don't know how the site plan looks in that regard.
posted by monocyte at 2:46 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

There are two ways nuclei can split: spontaneously or by neutron capture. Radioactivity is spontaneous fission: the nucleus splits into two smaller (lighter) elements. Neutron capture is when a neutron, traveling at just the right speed (temperature) collides with a nucleus and causes it to split (fission.)

A chain reaction occurs when a nucleus splits and emits a neutron that splits another nucleus. A self-sustaining chain reaction happens when slightly more than one neutron is emitted and splits another nucleus. In a reactor, chain reactions are controlled so it works out to one. In bombs, the number is slightly more than one.

But even when chain reactions are not self-sustaining, neutron capture can increase the natural rate of spontaneous fission, thereby making things hotter in both the thermal and radioactive sense. When the cladding gives way and the pellets get jumbled together, the temperature may increase due to more neutron capture and then raise the temperature to the melting point. This is basically the mechanism of a meltdown.

The phrase "partial meltdown" is misleading because it's not melting into a liquid, but the fuel is losing integrity because the cladding is burning or melting. Softening from heat is probably more accurate than partial melting. What's a partially melted ice cube?

Fuel assemblies have empty space in them, they aren't solid rods of fuel. If the material becomes more compact (either by melting or being compressed), neutron capture fission rates can increase due to there being less "miss" to the neutrons.

Criticality accidents happen when this amplification of radioactivity by neutron capture occurs by accident. This is also possible during meltdowns, as the neutron capture cross-section increases.
posted by warbaby at 2:46 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Even if it reaches criticality? That's some convection.
posted by msalt at 2:46 PM on March 16, 2011

zippy: ahh, got it. that's no consolation then, unfortunately.
posted by rainy at 2:47 PM on March 16, 2011

msalt: well, we were discussing the temperature that fuel will reach just by decay alone, without displacement and unpredictable factors of that sort. Obviously criticality is also possible. How likely is it at this point? I don't think anyone gave any ballpark figure yet.
posted by rainy at 2:51 PM on March 16, 2011

I'm also not sure if the OP had as much information as we do in this thread at the point when he or she wrote it.

Yeah it's been said upthread and I buy that (also, Conrail is history since 1999, so, sure...). But this has little to do with these idiotic school bus meets train analogies. I refuse to believe that that's what's needed to counteract "witchcraft" thinking, being talked to like a three year old...
posted by Namlit at 2:54 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

Don't forget that the town is uninhabitable after the train derailment for six generations or so, and that the whole state just inhaled some aerosolized asbestos or something. If you want that analogy to hold.
posted by norm at 2:57 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

One thing that will be definitely interesting to see is the comparisons between the relative success at the Onagawa nuclear plant and the failures of the Fukushima plants, considering their proximity to the epicenter and that they are both coastal plants. Anything pop up online about that yet?
posted by Weebot at 2:59 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

pjern, you may want to get in touch with your friend and see if he wants to attach an addendum to that facebook post - since it seems like now (several days later I presume) the train is closer and the tow truck still hasn't come.

about how the NRC guy knows about water in storage pool#4, we said above that the US might have been sending UAVs over the plant to get a better look. Could he be speaking from photos or IR measurements taken from above by US cameras? Is storage pool #4 under a roof anymore or is it exposed to the sky?
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:02 PM on March 16, 2011

I refuse to believe that that's what's needed to counteract "witchcraft" thinking, being talked to like a three year old...

A couple days ago, I had someone who generally knows better, who is quite bright, ask me where the heck they got hydrogen at a nuke plant. Another coworker spent his weekend explaining that earthquakes do not happen because we've pumped out all the oil that lubricates the tectonic plates.

I think there might well be some people who require the explanations we give bright three-year-olds.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 3:05 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

NHK's morning news just started. Saying the pools in reactors 3 and 4 cannot be filled. Will use water canons to try to spray water directly into the pool. Recapping yesterday. TEPCO says the pool in #3 reactor is not cooling and the water is evaporating. Apparently they are literally using the riot control water canons, which is disturbing to me on many levels. #5 and #6 pool water temperature is also rising. 946 rods in #5 and water has risen by 5º from yesterday to 63º and 876 rods in #6, temp up to 66º, 4º from yesterday. TEPCO says if this continues, these reactors will have similar situations to reactors 3 and 4. Power line being set up and they hope to have it up by morning. From tomorrow morning, winds expected to change--blow towards the southeast.
posted by zachlipton at 3:06 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

What happened to the water cannon? Didn't they say it was on site a while ago? And this power line they're running to get some pumps operational? What about all the boron they've dumped on it so far--is that going to ever help stop the reactions, or is it there to do something else?

Sorry for dumb questions; this thread and the other one are the sum source of my knowledge on this, but I thought there had been a couple of hopeful developments in the last few hours.
posted by bink at 3:10 PM on March 16, 2011

If there was a criticality accident in the storage pond, how would it manifest itself? Extreme amounts of heat and light and radiation, something like that? And if we're talking 783 assemblies at 200kg of fuel each, do we have any precent for what a reaction that size is like?
posted by memebake at 3:11 PM on March 16, 2011

Report from disaster response HQ: serious condition continues and metropolitan police to spray water into #4 reactor, but we have not been updated on the operation. Releasing radiation measurements every hour at the HQ. Right now, 13.4 microsiverts [ed: they didn't say where this was measured]--higher than usual but not immediately expected to effect health. Relief supplies not reaching the area and many quake victims are moving to leave the area, lots of anxiety.

What do you do exactly if the fuel rods in the storage pools reach criticality? Besides run like hell that is. I know that you'd generally use boron or other neutron absorbers to try to stop the reaction, but I would presume the radiation levels would be too high to get anywhere this.

What happened to the water cannon? Didn't they say it was on site a while ago? And this power line they're running to get some pumps operational? What about all the boron they've dumped on it so far--is that going to ever help stop the reactions, or is it there to do something else?
NHK just said that they are still trying to figure out a safe distance to operate it from and how exactly they want to use it. I don't think there's exactly a manual for this.
posted by zachlipton at 3:13 PM on March 16, 2011

bink: They might be getting the power on soon, and the water cannons are being tried soon. i think they put boron into the Reactor cores along with the seawater they pumped in, but I don't think they've been able to get anything into the storage pools yet, water or boron.
posted by memebake at 3:14 PM on March 16, 2011

There are people who can gain rapid understandings of unfamiliar situations through directly learning about them, and there are people who gain rapid understandings of unfamiliar situations through analogy to familiar situations. Group number 2 are not three year olds, or imbeciles. They're folks who just learn differently than people in group 1, and for them, analogies help.
posted by Bugbread at 3:14 PM on March 16, 2011 [9 favorites]

(sorry, didn't see zachlipton's post when I posted mine.)
posted by bink at 3:15 PM on March 16, 2011

zachlipton: those numbers for the rods in storage pools 5 or 6 - where did you get them from, and do you know if they are definitely rod numbers or if they are assembly numbers?
posted by memebake at 3:17 PM on March 16, 2011

Guardian liveblog:

Japanese authorities have denied the claim by Greg Jaczko, chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that the No 4 reactor at Fukushima may have lost all its coolant.

AP reports Hajime Motojuku, spokesman for plant operator Tepco, as saying the "condition is stable" at the No 4 reactor.

good news, unless this is cover up.

I was just wondering if i was panicking myself by considering criticality worst cases. Hopefully it wont come to that. But after 4 days of bad news it seems prudent to keep track of the worst case scenarios.
posted by memebake at 3:19 PM on March 16, 2011

^ then again, Guardian seems to be doing its thing of confusing reports about Reactor Cores with reports about Storage Pools, so who knows.
posted by memebake at 3:21 PM on March 16, 2011

I was going to snark about Simple English Wikipedia as an alternative to the Facebook copypasta, but they're doing a pretty good job at describing the disaster in not-overly-technical terms, complete with a clear table.

Plus, aside from being an awkward metaphor, I feel like it's sugarcoating the situation. It's been pretty clear for a few days that a failure where this plant poisons the land in a mid-sized radius (~10-30 miles) is pretty possible. This is nothing like a traffic accident or train derailment. This is practically taking land off the map for any positive purpose (either temporarily or for many generations, depending on how much plutonium and other long lasting elements are involved), along with people's homes and farmland. In addition, there's the issue of fallout for people who are still in the area (remember, 20-30 km is a zone where people have been told to stay indoors, although many have decided to flee entirely, in spite of the advisory, according to what I've heard on NPR), and higher radiation levels potentially causing health risks in the future for people near, but not in, the zone of alienation. A train derailment and/or car accident means some deaths and/or injuries, plus property damage and a cleanup. Life goes normal for everyone not at the accident.

I'm not saying it's certain or even likely that we'll have a zone of alienation, but we can't rule it out, either. Pretending it's not a possibility is being overly optimistic. It's like when people assumed that the plant had a core catcher, or that the containment vessels would never be compromised.

About the only thing I like about that post is that it makes it clear this isn't going to be worse than Chernobyl (at least in the same ways) but that we're way past TMI, which seems to be the general consensus anyway.
posted by mccarty.tim at 3:28 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

A non-exhaustive list of countries who have so far told their people to either evacuate to >80km away from the Fukushima plants, or evacuate the Tokyo metro area, or even evacuate Japan altogether:

- the Netherlands
- France
- the US
- the UK
- Germany
- China
- the Philippines
- Australia

A non-exhaustive list of countries who are not telling their people to evacuate to >80km away from the Fukushima plants, or evacuate the Tokyo metro area, or evacuate Japan altogether:

- Japan

Does something seem wrong with this picture?
posted by Asparagirl at 3:32 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

Out of curiosity does anyone know what it takes to rad-harden robots?

Probably what is done for particle accelerators, military gear and satellites: redundancy, error checking, self-repairing circuitry and physical hardening (shielding). Additionally, more complex processors pack transistors into tinier spaces, which increases the probability of a stray cosmic ray causing a data error, so lower density circuits and older, lower-performance processors are likely favored.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:32 PM on March 16, 2011

Several water pumps and hoses were being sent from U.S. bases around Japan to help at Fukushima, where technicians were dousing the overheating nuclear reactors with seawater in a frantic effort to cool them. The U.S. had already sent two fire trucks to the area to be operated by Japanese firefighters, said Cmdr. Leslie Hull-Ryde, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano says his government expects to ask the U.S. military for additional help. But Lapan said Wednesday that no request had been received yet. If a request were received that required troops to go within the 50-mile no-go zone around the power plant, that would be reviewed, he said.

source

Which sucks, because we have tons of gear and it's right there but we might have to drop it off on a street corner and let someone else haul it 80k and use it.
posted by fixedgear at 3:33 PM on March 16, 2011

pjern, you may want to get in touch with your friend and see if he wants to attach an addendum to that facebook post - since it seems like now (several days later I presume) the train is closer and the tow truck still hasn't come.

Yeah, to continue the analogy: After the wreck, when you got out of the car, you realized the fuel tank had come disconnected, so you tried to roll the car off the tracks using just the starter to crank the engine, but you drained the battery, then when you tried to push the car, you found out the brakes had locked closed and the wheels won't turn. What's more, the gas that poured out on the ground has started a small fire under the fuel tank, which might be about to blow sky high, and the tow truck guy says he can't go near that burning clunker, and shit, it's been almost six days. Someone is supposed to be coming with jumper cables, but no one knows whether they'll beat the train or not.
posted by Devils Rancher at 3:33 PM on March 16, 2011 [23 favorites]

memebake: "zachlipton: those numbers for the rods in storage pools 5 or 6 - where did you get them from, and do you know if they are definitely rod numbers or if they are assembly numbers"

They appear to be same numbers I was working from this morning, and given that the amounts are the same, they must be assemblies.
posted by mwhybark at 3:35 PM on March 16, 2011

zachlipton: those numbers for the rods in storage pools 5 or 6 - where did you get them from, and do you know if they are definitely rod numbers or if they are assembly numbers?

memebake: I got the numbers from NHK's (Japanese public television) live English (translated) stream. They said "fuel rods" and not assemblies, but that might have just been a simplification that was lost either to the media or to the translator. I don't know for certain.
posted by zachlipton at 3:36 PM on March 16, 2011

Another coworker spent his weekend explaining that earthquakes do not happen because we've pumped out all the oil that lubricates the tectonic plates.

Oops. Hope that wasn't my doing--I once suggested exactly such a scenario here to make a point about unintended consequences (didn't really think anyone would take it literally though).
posted by saulgoodman at 3:37 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Just watched live video of reactors from helicopter flying just outside of 30km radius. MUCH less steam/white smoke than there was yesterday.

Oh, and about the analogy, I didn't mean to imply that it was a good analogy. Just that using analogies to explain unfamiliar situations is not talking to people like they're three year olds. Just as with technical explanations, there are good explanations by analogy and bad explanations by analogy.
posted by Bugbread at 3:39 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Asparagirl: it's pretty trivial to evacuate non-citizen residents (small proportion of population) of any arbitrary area and probably not a life-altering change for most of them.. so, "better safe than sorry" is the approach those governments are taking. It's non-trivial to evacuate citizen residents (nearly everyone) who probably have nowhere else to go and an entire lifetime of history in a location, so the Japanese government is being quite cautious in its recommendations. Whether this is sensible is something we'll only learn about in the months to come.
posted by seanmpuckett at 3:43 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Can we all agree that the only train analogy for three year olds that makes real sense is one where the train breaks down near one of the worst nuclear power plant disasters of all time?

Or maybe -

"Imagine wondering around Hiroshima not long after the atomic bomb was dropped."

Or -

"Imagine living close down wind of a nuclear bomb test."

Or, since no one seems to agree on even the most important details of what's happening, maybe analogies aren't a useful idea right now, even for three year olds.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:44 PM on March 16, 2011

The reason why radiation was disseminated so widely from Chernobyl with such devastating effects was a carbon fire. Some 1,200 tonnes of carbon were in the reactor at Chernobyl and this caused the fire which projected radioactive material up into the upper atmosphere causing it to be carried across most of Europe.

There is no carbon in the reactors at Fukushima, and this means that even if a large amount of radioactive material were to leak from the plant, it would only affect the local area.

It's not clear to me why "there is not the same flammable material present" implies "there cannot possibly be a fire which would spread radioactive material beyond a local area".

There already have been fires, carbon or no.

So, um, yes it's a fucking mess. No, it's not the end of the world (just may 20 square kms of it).

A circle of radius 20 km has an area of about 1260 square km, not 20 square km.
posted by Flunkie at 3:47 PM on March 16, 2011 [11 favorites]

Here we go again: "Nuclear plant operator Tepco says it plans to try again on Thursday with its plan to drop water into the No 3 reactor by military helicopter. The frist attempt today was called off because of high radiation around the Fukushima Daiichi site, although the IAEA also had concerns about the method."

I thought we were worried this could further damage the already fragile storage pools. I suppose we're deciding that doing something is better than doing nothing and we're out of better ideas.

Also, Deputy Cabinet Secretary for Public Relations @http://twitter.com/#!/norishikata is apparently doing CNN live at 8am Japan time--about 10 minutes from now.
posted by zachlipton at 3:48 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Modern day 3 year olds are taught that trains go "choo choo choo". They don't.
posted by panaceanot at 3:49 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

So, during this whole thing I've been listening to a lot of "Relax (Take It Easy)", by MIKA. I'm not usually one to quote song lyrics at people, but I dunno, it seems relevant.

Relax, take it easy
For there is nothing that we can do.
Relax, take it easy
Blame it on me or blame it on you.

It's as if I'm scared.
It's as if I'm terrified.
It's as if I scared.
It's as if I'm playing with fire.
Scared.
It's as if I'm terrified.
Are you scared?
Are we playing with fire?

Relax
There is an answer to the darkest times.
It's clear we don't understand but the last thing on my mind
Is to leave you.
I believe that we're in this together.
Don't scream - there are so many roads left.

Relax, take it easy
For there is nothing that we can do.

I find it somewhat comforting on occasion.
posted by BungaDunga at 3:50 PM on March 16, 2011

Oh, and about the analogy, I didn't mean to imply that it was a good analogy. Just that using analogies to explain unfamiliar situations is not talking to people like they're three year olds. Just as with technical explanations, there are good explanations by analogy and bad explanations by analogy.

Right, thanks. I assure you that I don't need an analogy to get, and agree with this. But I did get a little side tracked by the Conrail crash, maybe that wasn't obvious. It's like, you know, you sit in a lesson and the teacher has a funny voice and you can't concentrate on what he's saying.

Back to matters that matter...
posted by Namlit at 3:53 PM on March 16, 2011

946 rods in #5 and water has risen by 5º from yesterday to 63º and 876 rods in #6, temp up to 66º, 4º from yesterday.

I remember seeing some numbers for the volume of the fuel ponds above. I think this combination of numbers, along with some givens, and more/less assumptions (depending on how accurate you want to model this and we should be able to get a decent value for the amount of power/heat being generated by the spent fuel rods. Take the number of rods we 'know' to be in each respective tank and we can check our numbers.

Some givens I would use would be: steady state conduction, assume lumped capacitance model as valid container of water (or seawater at this point?), constant volume (zero mass transfer for simplicity), open to atmosphere on top (delta P = 0), concrete on other 5 sides, maybe some others I'm missing.

I may try to run these numbers later tonight (using lumped capacitance formulas) but I've got 2 years worth of rust on my Heat Transfer/Thermo coursework so if anyone else wants to discuss/compute it might be prudent.
posted by RolandOfEld at 3:56 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

RolandOfEld: Those numbers are for the fuel storage pools in reactors #5 and #6. They are undamaged at this time, so they aren't open to the atmosphere and no seawater would have been pumped in. Just no cooling efforts there since the earthquake.
posted by zachlipton at 3:58 PM on March 16, 2011

Asparagirl, I think the thing is that foreign nations are trying to get people out of the way and can afford to be more cautious, while Japan is more focused on worrying about a recovery from an earthquake, tsunami, and plan for the possible release of large amounts of radiation from a failing nuclear plant.

Evacuating Tokyo of all visiting foreigners is one thing, but getting 12 million people to leave a city is a massive undertaking, and will pretty much result in more people being separated, more resources spent on transportation, and put more stress on nearly completely broken supply chains. Consider that food is scarce. Frankly, I can't imagine that working in any reasonable way, unless there's some massive organization and undamaged infrastructure. Telling citizens to leave by their own means would just jam the roads and mass transit, and, as we learned in Katrina, seriously disadvantage the poor. And then where would they go? What cities will really be ready to take in more people?

Japan is walking a fine line with this. Either they evacuate a huge area and metropolitan city, and waste resources that could be used in keeping people fed and healthy, as well as finding people who are dead or stranded, plus rebuilding, or such an action saves people from dangerous exposure.

Most projections, however, seem to say it's pretty unlikely Tokyo will be affected, even in the worst case scenario. Were I the PM, I'd make a plan to evacuate Tokyo that works in the current situation, maybe verify that transport vehicles are fueled and ready, but hold off on actually doing it unless it looked pretty clear that Tokyo could get dangerous radiation.
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:01 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Does something seem wrong with this picture?

I know Germany is evacuating citing nuclear issues, but the US and the Netherlands were citing food shortages and the rolling blackouts.

They may all be wanting to get their families out of the way of any potential nuclear cloud, but their public reason is perfectly valid.
posted by dw at 4:07 PM on March 16, 2011

Helos are back in the plan? Sorry for newspeak, doublepusungood. My last hope is that electric power is restored and that pumping systems and machinery are not already damaged. Helos, man, that's just not right. If this is the remediation plan, with damage to pool integrity implicit in such large water drops, just go with this bad boy and this one in one pass, followed by twenty S-64s loaded up and ready for hot steamy plumes, and then pray a lot. I think only one Evergreen 747 variant and 910 tanker have been built. And I honestly couldn't say how many firefighting S-64s exist and could be ganged into C-5s or C-141s.
If anything like that is the plan, it feels like a prelude to 'Everybody go to your place of worship'.
posted by nj_subgenius at 4:08 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

That simple.wikipedia.com entry on the disaster is, no lie, the best explanation I think I've seen yet. To the point where I may turn to Simple Wikipedia for information on all KINDS of complex developing situations.
posted by KathrynT at 4:10 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'm not optimistic about restoring electric power.. could it be in all this time they could not connect a portable generator? My assumption was they weren't trying, knowing it won't make much difference.
posted by rainy at 4:12 PM on March 16, 2011

Someone is supposed to be coming with jumper cables, but no one knows whether they'll beat the train or not.

Also, you were on your way to the drive-in with several hundred thousand friends hiding in the trunk.
posted by zippy at 4:13 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

I would think pools 5 and 6 would be fine once they restore power. They seem to be separated from the problem four physically, and they are hot but not boiling. Just get some water flow back and it's fine. The three buildings with the damage... man, looking at that twisted mess, it's hard to believe that the electrical and plumbing is entirely uneffected.
posted by tavella at 4:14 PM on March 16, 2011

They have been working with portable generators all this time, but -- I got the impression that it wasn't enough power to restore the cooling systems, just enough to restore basic power to the monitoring equipment in the control room. Apparently it's pitch black in there, too.

That said, the NHK article said they wouldn't necessarily be able to restore cooling even once they got the power back.
posted by Jeanne at 4:15 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Here's the simple.wikipedia.org article on the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Station. It is not linked by the page on nuclear disasters (but probably will be soon.)

As KatharynT says, it's a very nice page with a very useful chart.
posted by warbaby at 4:21 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Still catching up on the thread, I'm only up to 1745-ish on the comments, but I wanted to post this note from my own pocket nuke geek:

Spent fuel pools are "overmoderated." When water becomes less dense (up to a point) it can actually promote criticality. Now, all of my spent fuel pools (we're in "what I specifically do for a living" territory) are specifically designed to avoid criticality even under "optimum moderation" scenarios, like perfectly dense steam instead of 1.0 g/cc water. I'd assume their pools are designed the same way, but if they're not, or they're just acting overconservatively, use of borated water would certainly help to preclude a criticality event. That being said, criticality in the pool would be a localized effect and should be very brief, or at worse in cyclical pulses, that wouldn't be able to create any sustained energy or heat. However, it would make things much much worse for the fellows in the immediate area. They really need to get water in there ASAP....

posted by ob1quixote at 4:22 PM on March 16, 2011 [9 favorites]

nj_subgenius, I think helicopters are being considered if the police cannons don't work because they can carry water closer to the reactors than other water-carrying aircraft.

Based on videos I've seen of the tanker jets that spray water on the ground, they look like they spray water over a large area (probably because jets travel so fast instead of hovering), and even if they could concentrate it over a relatively small area (over the spent fuel tank), at the heights and speeds they fly, I imagine it'd probably be some pretty massive force for an already damaged tank. I know that raindrops aren't particularly forceful and form high up in the atmosphere, too, but they're small so there's more air resistance. A big sheet of water falling from a jet is probably a different story. They just look like they're more designed for putting out a large swath of forest than bringing water to a precise area.

My armchair engineer plan would be to find the strongest helicopter at Japan or a willing foreign power's disposal, have it carry a tank of water or a pump as close as it can bear to the reactor and spray boron-enriched water into the hole. Preferably, they have it run in drone mode, if such a thing is possible (I get the feeling that doesn't work on huge military/cargo helicopters, and I'm worried about what radiation would do to the chips needed for remote control).
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:22 PM on March 16, 2011

Jeanne: for monitoring equipment, it's enough to have a portable electric batteries, a diesel generator(s) should be enough to restore cooling, in fact the initial story was that they tried to do that but there was a snafu with non-matching connectors.
posted by rainy at 4:23 PM on March 16, 2011

Guardian liveblog:

10.39pm: Greg Jaczko of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission was buttonholed by journalists in Congress and pressed on his claims of no water remaining in a No 4 reactor's spent fuel pool, subsequently denied by Japanese officials. Jaczko says:

The information I have is coming from staff people in Tokyo who are interfacing with their Japanese counterparts. I've confirmed that their information is reliable.

The NRC has 11 staff currently in Japan. Jaczko did also say: "It is my great hope that the information is not accurate."

NHK's helicopter is showing the complex from 35km away from the plant. They are seeing white steam from the #2, 3, and 4 reactor buildings. Occasionally from the #4 building in the area where it is damaged, more frequent from the #3 reactor, and from the west part of the #2 reactor.

I don't know if this means they started trying to spray water or if this is unrelated.
posted by zachlipton at 4:30 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

@mccarty.tim: usage of the tankers was a bit facetious. You well point out their inappropriate application here. Great for a huge area, inside that, no good. Firefighting helicopters seem very unlikely to have an RC/drone mode capability of any kind off the shelf, and if so, that they'd unlikely have TEMPEST certification, hardened-epoxy circuitry or whatever else might stave off ruin from heavy gamma ray exposure. If water cannons didin't do it, the next best hope to me is the cooling systems miraculously come back online in that twisted mess, and seems unlikely. All I'm contributing is conjecture, so will recede into no-post mode. It's just that helicopters seem ineffective, and I couldn't hold my water, so to speak.
posted by nj_subgenius at 4:36 PM on March 16, 2011

zachlipton, you can't see spraying water in the coverage?
posted by angrycat at 4:36 PM on March 16, 2011

Extra info: seems like less smoke/steam than yesterday.
posted by zachlipton at 4:37 PM on March 16, 2011

does anyone know the status of the 6 workers who had supposedly been treated for radiation sickness? Was that known good information, and has there been any update?
posted by KathrynT at 4:39 PM on March 16, 2011

The view from the TEPCO webcam pointed at Fukushima-1 looks peaceful. Updated at 8am 2011/3/17
posted by zippy at 4:48 PM on March 16, 2011

The suspense is harrowing.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:49 PM on March 16, 2011

Scattered mentions of individual cases in this article (showed up on G-news a few minutes ago)

Elite Japan nuclear workers race to stop meltdown
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:49 PM on March 16, 2011

RolandOfEld: "I remember seeing some numbers for the volume of the fuel ponds above. I think this combination of numbers, along with some givens, and more/less assumptions (depending on how accurate you want to model this and we should be able to get a decent value for the amount of power/heat being generated by the spent fuel rods. Take the number of rods we 'know' to be in each respective tank and we can check our numbers."

I think it might useful to try to get a max value and vary it based on estimated percentage of uncooled volume (something like the water level expressed as a percentage.)

There are a BUNCH of variables that we can't know: as-intended spacing used by the plant operators, current spacing after all the explosions and the quake, actual water level, age of individual assemblies etc.

But getting a range of estimated temps might be interesting. WELL above my head, mind you, but interesting.
posted by mwhybark at 4:53 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

CTV-Montreal summarizes todays developments.

Of note is that they do report that levels briefly reached 1000 mSv. (1 Sievert.)

More on the "Fukushima Fifty" from the Montreal Gazette

The wife of another of the Fifty, speaking on Japanese television on Wednesday night, said her husband had not been able to talk to her since the disaster, but had managed to send an email. "His replies indicated a serious situation," she said. "He told me to take care of myself because he wouldn't be home for a while."

That kind of stoic understatement is painful to read.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:55 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Found Yamazaki 12 at the liquor store today. Kampai!
posted by mwhybark at 4:55 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

The workers at that site and the other sites that have been problematic definitely should be treated as heroes. I can only hope their heroics end up preventing an even bigger disaster. Exposing yourself to constant bombardments of radiation knowing that it can bring significant health consequences or even death takes a massive level of commitment.
posted by vuron at 4:59 PM on March 16, 2011

Snuffleupagus, that seems to be from the same source as the confusion last night, where it was later established (I thought!) that the mSv statement was a mistake and they meant uSv?
posted by KathrynT at 4:59 PM on March 16, 2011

The ocean is full of floating wreckage from all those houses. All that stuff is getting irradiated and will be floating around the ocean for years and washing up on coasts everywhere. Go beach combing with your metal detector and Geiger counter.

1-All claims regarding the worst case being something local and contained are in fact totally wrong..

No questioning that this has gotten worse than anybody thought possible. Many, many things have gone unexpectedly wrong. I don't see where you're going with this...holding your hands up and screaming isn't going to help anything.

I observe that expert estimates to date have been overly optimistic. Even estimated worst case scenarios are now in question. This isn't screaming. I'm carefully avoiding all caps.

2-The claim that this won't possibly be a Chernobyl scale event is wrong....
Also wrong. Obviously, the design wasn't safe enough (and we knew the Mark I reactors had some flaws), but there's zero chance of a month-long graphite fire like we saw at Chernobyl, and an uncontained explosion of the core also seems very unlikely. They are still miles apart.

Chernobyl scale AKA 7 on the IAEA incident scale it not out of the question. The fuel sitting in cooling tanks which may be dry, has been reported in this thread as potentially a greater scale disaster than Chernobyl.

Newer designs (ie. the ABWR) are safer, and these reactors should have been either retrofitted or retired. There's really no excuse for why the hydrogen venting systems were not retrofitted once that flaw was discovered.

Pointing to one system flaw such as the lack of a hydrogen venting system, ignores the realities of just how complicated these systems are. There are many risks such as the 8 hour battery life, spent fuel, etc. Optimistically proclaiming everything fine except this one flaw isn't proper failure and root cause analysis.

The latest concern, of course, is the spent fuel pool.

Some of the fuel was spent, some of it may just have been out the a reactor that was under maintenance. According to the thread it also seems uncertain what composition was of the fuel rods or if there is any water in the cooling ponds. Or the damage sustained to the spent fuel in the various fires, explosions and aftershocks.

3-The smartest nuclear engineers from around...

Unless you live in northeastern Japan, you do not have reason to panic. It is safe to say at this point that there will be no magic Apollo 13-style fix. Workers will die trying to fix this, and the fix will not be made overnight.

I agree no fix is likely to come overnight, but at this point the situation is not entering into a state of increasing certainty of wrt potential outcomes. Every hour we seem to get more information which raises the concerns of experts. First it was unlikely to be worse the TMI, now that seems very incorrect. Today it's the fuel, yesterday it was hydrogen. New incidents not accounted for in prior risk assessments are cropping up.

4-Other nuclear plants arn't looking so healthy, but we'll worry about that later.

Cite please? That's the first I'm hearing about this.

Daini and Owagawa have had problems though seem ok for now.

5-The US...

The tsunami appears to have been the main culprit here, which took the cooling systems offline, and prevented the easy restoration of backup power. The hydrogen explosions (again, that damn venting system) basically made further repairs and recovery impossible once they happened (and also likely set off the chain of events going on at Reactor 4). I haven't heard many reports of damage from the quake itself.

We seem to have limited ability to properly assess the risks in these very complex systems. When things go wrong, it seems that we are not able to bring things back under control. Since the engineering design was supposed to avoid these risks, I find your confidence disturbing.

Also, from my understanding, the Mark-1 reactors in the US have been retrofitted with proper hydrogen venting systems. Horray for a responsible regulatory climate!

Venting hydrogen is just one problem of many in this crisis. We are totally fucked. Panicking won't really help, we are so far beyond that.
posted by humanfont at 5:00 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Just for the record, ALT+230 = µ in Windows.
posted by ob1quixote at 5:01 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

from twitter-user @seanbonner: "Grabbed this URL to keep it out of the hands of spammers, made a tribute page: http://fukushimafifty.com/ "
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:02 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

ob1quixote, I think that only works with a number pad, I can't figure out how to make it happen on my laptop.
posted by KathrynT at 5:02 PM on March 16, 2011

KathrynT, I hope so. Seeing the larger measurement spelled out unambiguously made me wonder.

I'm going to post the text of the longer article, as it isn't that long.

---[ARTICLE BEGINS]---

Fukushima Fifty on whose bravery all hope rests
 
 
By Andrew Gilligan, The Daily Telegraph

They work sweating in airtight suits, fighting disaster in a plant collapsing at their feet. They brave explosions and fires that have already killed five of them and may have blasted the others with life-changing radiation. They are the "Fukushima Fifty", the handful of people who are all that now stands between Japan and the world's second-worst nuclear accident.

In a country already brimming with stoic courage, this skeleton crew is surely the bravest of the lot. From fragments of information, we can build a picture of their desperate struggle to save their countrymen, and themselves. They are not just technicians, but also soldiers and firemen. They are middle-class control room and health personnel and working-class technicians. There are 50 or so at any one time, but the total, with shifts and rotations, may be as many as 180. The odds against them are great, and growing.

"It doesn't look good at all," said Matt Tuck, a 22-year veteran of the British nuclear industry who is now business director of Matom, a consultancy specialising in nuclear plant operation and emergency management. "Fifty is a very small number, given that there are six reactors. They are at pretty serious risk."

On Wednesday night, the Japanese government raised the legal limit of radiation the Fifty could be exposed to by 150 per cent, from 100 to 250 millisieverts, more than 12 times the British legal dose for radiation staff. The Fifty themselves have been silent. They have higher priorities than media interviews. But they appear to be under no illusions about the gravity of their position. A control room technician at the plant told a colleague who has been evacuated that he was perfectly prepared to die. It was, he said, his job.

The wife of another of the Fifty, speaking on Japanese television on Wednesday night, said her husband had not been able to talk to her since the disaster, but had managed to send an email. "His replies indicated a serious situation," she said. "He told me to take care of myself because he wouldn't be home for a while."

The terror of their experience is clear. Danny Eudy, from Texas, was one of a number of American technicians working at the plant when the earthquake struck. "He was in shock when he called," said his wife, Janie. "He said everything was falling from the ceiling. He walked through so much glass that his feet were cut." Then came the tsunami, carrying away homes and vehicles and, crucially, destroying the pumps that kept the radioactive fuel rods cool.

After backup systems also failed, the workforce, at first about its normal strength of 1,800, fought to maintain cooling by pumping seawater. This is being done by fire engines, their hoses jerry-rigged into the plant's coolant system. But when a series of explosions rocked successive reactors, and even seawater cooling started to fail, the vast majority of the workforce was pulled out.

Five workers have already died since the quake and 22 more have been injured, while two are missing. One worker was taken to hospital after grasping his chest and finding himself unable to stand, and another needed treatment after receiving a blast of radiation near a damaged reactor. The remaining workers are trying frantically to bring multiple crises under control. They are building a temporary road for the fire trucks to reach perhaps the biggest problem of all, an overheating spent fuel pool at reactor four. The plant's narrow corridors and the need to work for only short periods because of the intense radiation are hampering efforts.

Tepco, the plant's operator, has refused to say how the Fifty were chosen, or what choice they themselves had in the matter. At Chernobyl - where 28 plant workers died of radiation poisoning within months, including 19 whose skin fell off - it emerged that many were not told about the risks.

Japan's defence ministry has already made the same complaint on behalf of some of its soldiers involved in emergency operations on the site. But for the professional nuclear technicians, this is a scenario that must have been played out in a thousand canteen conversations.

"They will be wearing full protective gear the whole time," said Mr Tuck. "It doesn't protect against everything, but you can work for several hours in that. You would also dose-manage to have very short potential exposures, as short as a few minutes.

"If three guys have got to do an operation on a pipe, say, you might only have one of them using the spanner at any one time and the others taking it in turns to hang back."

The Fifty were pulled out for 45 minutes on Wednesday, retreating 500 metres after radiation spiked to new highs. Their final evacuation would signal that the authorities have given up.

Ultimately, however, if other people's lives can be saved by sacrificing theirs, the Fifty will, says Mr Tuck, be asked to pay the price. "Would the authorities make that decision? I think they probably would," he said.

That choice might be the same in any country, and could well still be avoided. But in Japan, with its culture steeped in memories of noble self-sacrifice, the "Fukushima Samurai" are already starting to become pre-emptive folk heroes.

In a post on Mixi, the Japanese social networking site, Michiko Otsuki, an evacuated fellow worker at a different Fukushima nuclear plant, lionised them as "fighting without running awayÖ working to protect everyone's lives in exchange for their own".

Even Naoto Kan, the prime minister, has told the crew: "You are the only ones who can resolve the crisis. Retreat is unthinkable."

---[ARTICLE ENDS]---

posted by snuffleupagus at 5:05 PM on March 16, 2011 [9 favorites]

For Mac users, typing Option-m gives you µ .
posted by fremen at 5:06 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

ob1quixote's post may explain the brief spikes in radiation that send workers away from the site. Brief criticality events in the storage pools. 400 mSv a day or two ago and possibly 1000 mSv today along with others.
posted by Procloeon at 5:07 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

My nuke geek says his "best guess" is that, yes, those were brief criticality incidents in the spent fuel pool. That is a guess, mind you, from a guy about 9000 miles offsite taking care of his kid.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:10 PM on March 16, 2011

I was going to snark about Simple English Wikipedia as an alternative to the Facebook copypasta, but they're doing a pretty good job at describing the disaster in not-overly-technical terms, complete with a clear table.

It's important to remember that Simple English Wikipedia is not (just) for children, but for anyone learning English, and the concepts discussed can be as serious and complex as necessary -- it's only the vocabulary used that is limited.

KathrynT: If you're typing in a MeFi text box (not necessarily everywhere), you can use μ thus: μ
Works in preview, he pre-disclaimed
posted by dhartung at 5:12 PM on March 16, 2011

humanfont: "The ocean is full of floating wreckage from all those houses. All that stuff is getting irradiated and will be floating around the ocean for years and washing up on coasts everywhere. Go beach combing with your metal detector and Geiger counter."

I actually spent some significant internet research squirrel time on this.

Also, a friend linked to a Navy shot of a house at sea and I realized with a start that I had seen it in some of the tsunami footage as it, uh, launched. I remembered it because I was wondering what the white patches on the walls were as it slid by in the torrent.

W/r/t ocean-borne debris, and I apologize for skipping the cites, it appears that Northern California to Southern BC should start seeing some things wash up by late fall, about 6 months out. Thereafter, we should expect further debris for about 50 years or longer, based on the incidence of blown-glass fishing floats. However blown glass floats are much less common as beachwrack than they were thirty years ago which led me to expect that the majority of the beachwrack will have sunk, dispersed, or made landfall by twenty years from now.

As the tsunami wrack was swept out prior to the nuclear emergency, I would not expect radioactive material to be in the stuff that washes up, although I suppose it's not an impossibility - an item which picked up fallout and somehow managed to retain it, for example, although what such an item would be I have no idea.
posted by mwhybark at 5:12 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Very interesting 'spike' on the Hino radiation monitor a view minutes ago. A glitch?
posted by woodblock100 at 5:13 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

So if these are brief criticality incidents in one of the spent fuel pools, any clue what is moderating the chain reaction and causing it to stop and start? It doesn't seem like the workers have been are able to do anything up there, so why would it stop?
posted by zachlipton at 5:15 PM on March 16, 2011

Very interesting 'spike' on the Hino radiation monitor a view minutes ago. A glitch?

whoa. that's gotta be a machine error, no?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:15 PM on March 16, 2011

Looks like it might be a reboot, see the no data section? Not that I actually know.
posted by mwhybark at 5:15 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

zachlipton: possibly fuel pushed / shoved apart by released energy. I was wondering this myself.
posted by rainy at 5:16 PM on March 16, 2011

That's the first time I've seen a gap in the graph, so perhaps it is a glitch.
posted by bwanabetty at 5:16 PM on March 16, 2011

woodblock100, that does look like a regular glitch in data recording. No values recorded before the glitch. AKA, looks like my network graphs after outage/restart.
posted by zengargoyle at 5:16 PM on March 16, 2011

Yes, a reboot I guess. Sorry for the false alarm.

But I've actually been worried that thing is broken; it has been hanging around at base level for such a long time ...
posted by woodblock100 at 5:18 PM on March 16, 2011

The server the counter is hosted on is getting flaky. I've just had two refreshs (for my ustream feed, it's still going because people are still watching) with 404s.
posted by BungaDunga at 5:19 PM on March 16, 2011

Asparagirl writes "A non-exhaustive list of countries who are not telling their people to evacuate to >80km away from the Fukushima plants, or evacuate the Tokyo metro area, or evacuate Japan altogether:

"- Japan

"Does something seem wrong with this picture?"

Not really. The risk-reward calculation for the first group is different than for the second group. If nothing else the costs for the first group are being borne by the evacuees and the costs for the second group are going to be borne at least partially by Japan. Also the first group has some where to go that isn't already dealing with two disasters of epic proportions. Finally keep in mind that people die in evacuations. Just moving 12 million people down the road 200 kilometres is going to cause injuries and deaths.
posted by Mitheral at 5:20 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

ob1quixote, thanks for the info re: criticality in Storage Pools. So the pools are designed to prevent criticality - do you mean even if all the water has boiled/drained away, and the zirconium around the rods is igniting, etc?

What he said was that it's a bit worse if not quite all the water is gone; some concentration of steam is worse than no water at all, and they are designed to prevent criticality even in that case. If the pool is not designed so carefully (or I suppose if the contents have been moved around) there might be brief moments of criticality when steam is at exactly the right concentration. I would think that zirconium on fire would have no effect on the chance of criticality unless it actually melted the fuel.

They interviewed a former NRC comissioner on CBC radio a while ago. He seemed to believe the story that there's no water in #4 spent fuel, but had no credible source or explanation at all. Probably just speculation or misinterpretation, I suspect. It seems quite reckless to not mention the reasoning behind such a conclusion before reporting it in public, in contradiction of what the people more directly involved are saying.
posted by sfenders at 5:23 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

My nuke geek doesn't have any real idea of why it would be stop/start, Zach. I went back to the wikipedia article on Tokaimura and could possibly see a situation like the one described therein:

The criticality [at Tokaimura] continued intermittently for about 20 hours. As the solution boiled vigorously, steam bubbles (see Void coefficient ) attenuated the water's action as a neutron moderator and the solution lost criticality. However, the reaction resumed as the solution cooled and the voids disappeared.

Does that seem credible, other nuke geeks? Mine's trying to get himself to focus on something other than modeling fuel ponds so he can have a real life for a bit.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:24 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's also that other countries may be unsure if Japan is hiding something. Japan knows whether they do or not.
posted by rainy at 5:24 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Link from that quote: Void coefficient
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:25 PM on March 16, 2011

mwhybark Also, a friend linked to a Navy shot of a house at sea and I realized with a start that I had seen it in some of the tsunami footage as it, uh, launched.

Surreal photo.
posted by hat at 5:26 PM on March 16, 2011

Mitheral, wrt Asparagirl's comment, the NYT article I linked before is implying that the Japanese authorities hide facts from the public. Other governments try to protect their citizens in Japan.
posted by carmina at 5:28 PM on March 16, 2011

Today's IAEA facebook update:

Spent fuel that has been removed from a nuclear reactor generates intense heat and is typically stored in a water-filled spent fuel pool to cool it and provide protection from its radioactivity. Water in a spent fuel pool is continuously cooled to remove heat produced by spent fuel assemblies. According to IAEA experts, a typical spent fuel pool temperature is kept below 25 ˚C under normal operating conditions. The temperature of a spent fuel pool is maintained by constant cooling, which requires a constant power source.

Given the intense heat and radiation that spent fuel assemblies can generate, spent fuel pools must be constantly checked for water level and temperature. If fuel is no longer covered by water or temperatures reach a boiling point, fuel can become exposed and create a risk of radioactive release. The concern about the spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiichi is that sources of power to cool the pools may have been compromised.

The IAEA can confirm the following information regarding the temperatures of the spent nuclear fuel pools at Units 4, 5 and 6 at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant:
Unit 4 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 84 ˚C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 84 ˚C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: no data Unit 5 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 59.7 ˚C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 60.4 ˚C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: 62.7 ˚C Unit 6 14 March, 10:08 UTC: 58.0 ˚C 15 March, 10:00 UTC: 58.5 ˚C 16 March, 05:00 UTC: 60.0 ˚C
The IAEA is continuing to seek further information about the water levels, temperature and condition of all spent fuel pool facilities at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:29 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

NHK World is now reporting that the water canon trucks just arrived at the plant. They just cut to a repeat (probably for the next half hour?), so no idea what the plan is exactly besides shoot the wet stuff in the general direction of the melting nuclear reactors and see what happens. Would they be putting boron in with the water? How much water can a riot police water canon truck hold and how does that compare to the volume of the storage pool?
posted by zachlipton at 5:33 PM on March 16, 2011

I think they said they were going to try to shoot the water through the hole in the wall of #4. Asahi says the truck can hold 4000 liters? Not sure about the pools.
posted by Jeanne at 5:37 PM on March 16, 2011

"These vehicles can carry 2000 gallons (8,000 L) of water, and have a delivery rate of 250 gallons per minute (15 L/s). The water can be delivered as a continuous stream, or in pulses; as a hard jet or as a spray."
posted by mwhybark at 5:37 PM on March 16, 2011

So, are they able to refuel the police cannons on site? Could they hook them up to a pump to get saltwater?
posted by mccarty.tim at 5:41 PM on March 16, 2011

I meant, reload with water, not refuel with gasoline.
posted by mccarty.tim at 5:42 PM on March 16, 2011

zachlipton writes "How much water can a riot police water canon truck hold and how does that compare to the volume of the storage pool?"

Probably only a few thousand gallons; what ever the number it's a drop in a bucket compared tot he pool volume. However, hopefully, that most likely doesn't matter. Either the water cannon truck itself or a pump tender will be able to suck water directly from the ocean and spray that continuously. Worst case where they need to spray from is farther away from the water than the length of hose they have/can pump through and therefor the truck has to keep driving back and forth. Hopefully if that turns out to be the case they have water tankers that can do the driving and the cannon truck can concentrate on spraying.
posted by Mitheral at 5:43 PM on March 16, 2011

Well this post says the pools are 40 ft x 45 ft x 40 ft, or 72,000 cubic feet. There are 7.48 US gallons/cubic foot, so that's 538,560 gallons (2,038,671 liters). Obviously they don't have to fill the pools all the way back up, but doing this 2000 gallons or so at a time seems rather futile.

This is just my total uneducated speculation, so don't freak out at this, but is it possible that a smal amount of water would make the problem worse? It would cool the rods slightly, but could it help reach criticality?

NHK is doing live coverage right this second!
posted by zachlipton at 5:50 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

The helo water drop on NHK, hopefully to cool things down enough for the truck to get put in place?
posted by nomisxid at 5:51 PM on March 16, 2011

helicopter dumped water on #3!
posted by Mach5 at 5:53 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

NHK just had a video of a helo dropping water on #4.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:53 PM on March 16, 2011

if only it was dumping as fast as they keep re-showing it.
posted by nomisxid at 5:53 PM on March 16, 2011

correcting myself - #3.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:54 PM on March 16, 2011

second load was 6 mins later, but less concentrated
posted by nomisxid at 5:55 PM on March 16, 2011

The NHK translator sounds really moved by what she's translating during that water drop. I really feel for the people reporting this, I wonder if they're getting any sleep.
I feel for the people manning those helicopters too. Damn.
posted by batgrlHG at 5:57 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I can see water being sprayed from below onto #3 on NHK.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:57 PM on March 16, 2011

They are saying each helicopter can drop 7.5 tons of water. My quick calculations are that this is about 2,000 us gallons per drop if it all makes it in, though obviously there is spillage.
posted by zachlipton at 5:57 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

The NHK translator sounds really moved by what she's translating during that water drop.

Can you give us the sense of what's she's saying? Is she moved by the heroism of the pilot? Or just that something, finally, positive seems to be happening. (I imagine that its a relief to see some visible sign of the fight going on there.)
posted by anastasiav at 5:59 PM on March 16, 2011

Apparently the NHK feed is live. Two helicopters are working in tandem.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:02 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm watching the water drop- it is looking like the majority of the water is not hitting the reactor core.
posted by gen at 6:03 PM on March 16, 2011

Can you give us the sense of what's she's saying? Is she moved by the heroism of the pilot? Or just that something, finally, positive seems to be happening. (I imagine that its a relief to see some visible sign of the fight going on there.)

My read of it is mostly that they are just pleased that something is happening right now, compared to yesterday's inability to do very much as a result the high radiation levels. You can watch it live in English at http://jibtv.com/program/fullscreen.aspx?page=0.
posted by zachlipton at 6:03 PM on March 16, 2011

I don't take this as a positive sign. If they are dumping ~2,000 gallons (probably more like ~1,500 after spillage) of water from helicopters, risking the lives of the pilots above while not getting all that much water into the reactors, then that means they are in last ditch effort mode. Of course I very well could be mistaken, and I do hope I am.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:03 PM on March 16, 2011

Translator just corrected herself. Two drops: 9:48AM and then again a few minutes later.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:04 PM on March 16, 2011

I'm glad they're doing something about the heat in #3 and #4 after exhausting more conventional options, but helicopters are pretty desperate according to this thread, which makes me concerned.

Also, about how much radiation are the pilots likely getting? I imagine they probably have geiger counters onboard and will probably say what they've been getting shortly, but I have no idea how radiation spreads (I imagine up, as the radioactive material is hot and therefore rises?). Like the engineers, these pilots are heros.
posted by mccarty.tim at 6:04 PM on March 16, 2011

Water now being dropped on #4.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:05 PM on March 16, 2011

You can watch it live in English

It won't load on my phone.
posted by anastasiav at 6:05 PM on March 16, 2011

the 3rd drop went for #4, thats why it looks like it missed. its really hard to judge depth with the camera zoomed in so hard.
posted by Mach5 at 6:05 PM on March 16, 2011

And a third drop....9:48, 9:52, 9:54 (this one was on #4)

Translator is saying that part of #4 roof remains, making drops trickier.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:05 PM on March 16, 2011

anastasiav, are you trying to load the NHK site in your web browser, or have you downloaded the free app? It's playing on my iPhone right now.
posted by maudlin at 6:07 PM on March 16, 2011

There's an NHK World app for iPhones/iPads.
posted by mccarty.tim at 6:07 PM on March 16, 2011

anastasiav: If you have an iPhone or other iOS device, they have an app that shows the same thing (what a world we live in, watch the helicopters dump water on the nuclear reactors from your phone). Just search NHK in the app store. No clue if Android has a similar app.
posted by zachlipton at 6:08 PM on March 16, 2011

9:48
9:52

aborted trip? at 9:58 I didn't see anything drop, it didn't seem to approach as close

10:01

the first drop was so perfectly on target for #3, the rest have been more widespread like a normal firefighting drop.
posted by nomisxid at 6:08 PM on March 16, 2011

Rachel Maddow is making me nervous.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:08 PM on March 16, 2011

What is Maddow saying? Not near cable ATM.
posted by zachlipton at 6:09 PM on March 16, 2011

"The NHK translator sounds really moved by what she's translating during that water drop."

"Can you give us the sense of what's she's saying?"

She's translating about the first helicopter moving in, dropping water, talking about how water is being dispursed, etc. - obviously no idea as to results of drop yet. And so on - voice trembling a bit, hesitating here and there - it's mostly vocal inflection I'm going on. It could be anything from someone very tired, very worried, or very happy to see something happening. But the trembling - well, I think that's emotion. But totally my subjective reading to how she's saying things rather than what.
posted by batgrlHG at 6:09 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Watching people fighting Nuclear Armageddon 9000 miles away: there's an app for that.

Thanks everyone.
posted by anastasiav at 6:10 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Just before the dumps started the live shot was showing now steam at all for a long time. Now I'm seeing lots of steam from #3, presumably from the drops and the spraying. I take that to mean they are able to hit the rods. Not able to make out any steam from #4 though.

Some of the helo dumps look like they are missing completely though, as they are dumping at too high an altitude.

The NHK expert is saying it might take 100-200 trips to have a meaningful impact.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:11 PM on March 16, 2011

They are saying they've attached lead plate to the bottom of the helicopters to protect the pilots
posted by mrzarquon at 6:11 PM on March 16, 2011

Pic of the helos picking up water, from Yomiuri, courtesy of translator coworker.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 6:11 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

She just said that they have outfitted the helicopters with lead plates to mitigate the radiation exposure, maybe that's why they delayed the plan by a day? to get that finished?
posted by KathrynT at 6:12 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

NHK World anchor is saying drops are difficult because JSDF pilots are trying to accomplish the mission without hovering directly over the reactors.

Helicopters have been equipped with (floor?) plating to protect the pilots and they are wearing protective gear.

Approximately some 200 trips would be required to do the job entirely by air so the aerial component is just the first part, to be followed by the cannon trucks...
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:12 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

What is Maddow saying? Not near cable ATM.

Showing satellite image of the reactors. Reactor 4 is essentially completely exposed, the concrete shell has been blown away. The spent fuel rods stored in Reactor 4 are 72% of all nuclear material at Chernobyl. Those are the fuel rods that American nuclear experts said today were sitting in dry pools. Basically what others have said but with pictures and numbers and that Rachel Maddow concern-face.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:12 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Announcer stated that 11 water cannon trucks are on way to the site.
posted by Mitheral at 6:16 PM on March 16, 2011

Come on, water! Please let this work.
posted by cashman at 6:17 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Maddow also reported that the various pools (1 through 6) hold anywhere between 90 and 150 tons of spent fuel each. The problem pool, No 4, which is basically dry, is the one holding 150 tons. In comparison, Chernobyl had 180 tons of fresh fuel.

Big question: if the pools go dry and the fuel rods reach criticality again, how much radiation will be released and how far can it go? Maddow points out that if we're lucky, the damaged rods are old enough that the release will be on the low end, but that we just don't know yet.
posted by maudlin at 6:18 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

NHK announcer: Helo operations limited to 40 passes per copter.
posted by CaptApollo at 6:18 PM on March 16, 2011

NHK is reporting the helicopters have been suspended, and are leveling the scene.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:20 PM on March 16, 2011

Whoops - helos now out after just 4 passes. I think y6 means LEAVING
posted by CaptApollo at 6:20 PM on March 16, 2011

*leaving.

Crap.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:20 PM on March 16, 2011

He does! Possibly due to radiation levels. (Am sitting next to y6)
posted by batgrlHG at 6:21 PM on March 16, 2011

They just showed the riot trucks (in a previous photo, I think). They look like fire engines. I'm guessing they probably do have onboard pumps, if only because of the hose and gauges and stuff on the side. I'm no expert, though.
posted by mccarty.tim at 6:24 PM on March 16, 2011

Ugh, finances.
posted by mccarty.tim at 6:27 PM on March 16, 2011

NHK isn't reporting this, but I am sure I saw water being sprayed onto #3 from below. This was a video they repeated over and over. There was what appeared to be a moving stream of stuff from below, hitting the building, and then steam pouring off. But the video quality if not great.

I hate reporting something like that, as it's important but not verified by anyone. But I did see what looked like it could only be a stream of water from below sweeping back and forth.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:29 PM on March 16, 2011

NHK now (possibly my error earlier): projected that helicopters get just 40 MINUTES each per day.
posted by CaptApollo at 6:32 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

oh the tragicomedy of the twitter feed next to the ustream feed of nhk-english,

spam for a conspiracy board "reactor number 6 explodes"
someone asking "can't they use a U.S. space suit"...because japan doesn't have an entire section of the ISS or anything.

blech
posted by nomisxid at 6:34 PM on March 16, 2011

"oh the tragicomedy of the twitter feed next to the ustream feed of nhk-english,"

This why I pop out the NHK video feed and close the tab. It's just too painful to even glance at that twitter feed.
posted by lych at 6:37 PM on March 16, 2011

Yeah, I had to embiggen the NHK part of the screen so as not to see the chat feed, which looks a lot like one of those AOL "lobbies" from 1995.
posted by FelliniBlank at 6:38 PM on March 16, 2011

According to twitter, helicopters are now involved. Power not yet restored. People afraid to enter the area to perform rescues. Shit just keeps getting worse. 180 ppl cycling through shifts of 50.

At the very best, it's touch and go between this being a big disaster and a Much Bigger disaster. A delicate balancing of factors until they get/find/create a lucky break.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:45 PM on March 16, 2011

Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller has two very watchable, non-physics-major lectures on YouTube all about nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and radioactivity and its health effects. (Part 1 Part 2)
posted by Camofrog at 6:46 PM on March 16, 2011 [8 favorites]

Whoops, apparently I kept reading twitter updates for nearly an hour after i meant to hit post!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:49 PM on March 16, 2011

A pic of an apparent direct hit on one of the reactors, from Gigazine in Japan.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 6:52 PM on March 16, 2011

This exchange from the Le Monde liveblog cracked me up:

This comment by "Snow" brings a dose of levity, which we all need.

[Comment from user snow]
Maybe this is stupid, but could they throw big snowballs (or really big ice cubes) onto the reactors, maybe even with catapults?

Sorry for this interlude, we now return to the news.
posted by neal at 6:58 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Best @arclight tweet yet:

I patiently and honestly answered the media's questions. I would like them to return the favor.

posted by fairytale of los angeles at 7:01 PM on March 16, 2011 [8 favorites]

If they are dropping water via helicopter, how viable would it be to drop a large flexible water hose instead? Pull that hose from the ocean side (looks to be about 900 feet from the water's edge to the reactor buildings), run a hovercraft (I'm sure the JDF has a few) with a generator and big pump onboard up to the breakwater. Hose to pump to water--and you would have a constant stream of seawater flowing, into the building. I'm out of my league with this technical stuff, but simply dumping water to temporarily cool off the reactors and refill the fuel rod pool seems a little...short-sighted.
posted by Chrischris at 7:04 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

LA Times roundup of opinion on radiation risk to California:

"It's a matter of distance. Dangerous radioactivity could not cross the 5,000 miles of the Pacific without petering out."

...Even without detailed data, some experts said the radiation in Japan posed little danger to the U.S. Tony VanCuren, an atmospheric scientist with the California Air Resources Board in Sacramento, said it would take a "catastrophic release" of radiation to carry dangerous levels across the ocean, and even then it would take five to 15 days for particles to reach California.

Bill Patzert, a climatologist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, contrasted the problems at Fukushima with the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 in the Ukraine, where a massive blast drove radioactive debris into the air and around the globe.

"If we had multiple Chernobyl-type failures and it did go five to eight miles into the atmosphere and get into the jet stream, it could definitely impact the West Coast of the United States and Canada," Patzert said. "But we're not there yet."
posted by mediareport at 7:05 PM on March 16, 2011

Chrischris, the problem with your idea is that the helicopters aren't allowed to hover due to radiation. A constant stream system from the air is out of the question.
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:09 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

"Boiling Water Reactor Systems (.pdf)" by USNRC Technical Training Center, featuring the GE Mark I, II and III reactors. Includes discussion of high- and low-pressure emergency core cooling systems.

Via NukeWorker.com.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:10 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Have the workers gone back in? And I read the thread, Just have not seen where they have.
posted by ionized at 7:10 PM on March 16, 2011

"how viable would it be to drop a large flexible water hose instead?"

My understanding is that the radiation levels are too high to have a helicopter hover there. And you likely don't want an autonomous craft full of jet fuel hovering over a few tons of nuclear fuel.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:11 PM on March 16, 2011

My concern there is heat. I don't know the tolerances of your average industrial flexible hose.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 7:13 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

The problem with an empty tube is it probably wont stay in, the weight of the tube from the outside of the structure would be more than the weight inside and could drag it out. Or you could get a siphon action accidentially and start pulling water out of the pool.
posted by mrzarquon at 7:16 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you stopped following the feed, @arclight is tweeting again a little. No idea if this means any change with regard to his corporate gag order.
posted by zachlipton at 7:16 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm surprised a standpipe connection to the fuel bay so that firetrucks can add water (such as you might see in a high rise building) isn't part of the design.
posted by Popular Ethics at 7:17 PM on March 16, 2011

The problem with an empty tube is it probably wont stay in, the weight of the tube from the outside of the structure would be more than the weight inside and could drag it out. Or you could get a siphon action accidentially and start pulling water out of the pool.

Tie a big lead weight to it.
posted by Flunkie at 7:20 PM on March 16, 2011

A flexible hose with a high-pressure stream has to be anchored at the nozzle end, otherwise you'd get something like how a firehose acts without firemen holding it.

If the flexible hose has a sufficiently weighted nozzle, you have to hope it lands aimed in the direction you want when you let go, because nobody can go in to position it.
posted by ardgedee at 7:20 PM on March 16, 2011

There is no single flow volume for fire hose. It all depends upon how much pressure you are able to supply in getting the water through the hose line. Then the length of the hose directly affects the amount of pressure it will take. For 1 3/4" hose at 125 gpm it takes about 16 psi per 100 ft. For a flow of 150 gpm it will take a pressure of 25 psi per 100 ft. At 180 gpm about 36 psi per 100 ft. If pumping a 200 ft. preconnected 1 3/4" line with a 150 gpm fog nozzle at 100 psi, you will need an engine pressure of 150 psi. That is 50 psi for overcoming the friction loss in the hose and 100 psi to properly operate the nozzle.

When sending water through a 2 1/2" line at 100 gpm it takes about 2 1/2 psi per 100 ft. of hose. At the same flow rate, 500 ft. of hose will require 13 psi to move that volume of water. At 300 gpm through 2 1/2" hose it requires 22 psi per 100 ft., or 110 psi through 500 ft of 2 1/2" hose. At 400 gpm the 2 1/2" hose needs a pressure of 40 psi per 100 ft. to push it through, or 200 psi to move it 500 feet.

3" hose has a loss about equal to the desired flow divided by 100 and that number squared. Example: 500 gpm through 100 ft. of 3" hose. Move the decimal 2 places to the left and the 500 becomes 5 then square the 5 or 5 X 5 = 25 psi per 100 ft. will be the friction loss at 500 gpm. You could force 1000 gpm through the 3" hose and would need a pressure of 10 X 10 = 100 psi to get that flow through one 100 ft section of 3" hose. If you try to move 1000 gpm through more than 250 ft. of 3", you will exceed the rating of your pumper at over 250 psi. Not only that, but you will need a 2,000 gpm pumper to reach the 1,000 gpm at 250 psi.

5" hose has a friction loss equal to 1/15th that of 3" hose. The same 1000 gpm can be pushed through 100 ft. of 5" hose with only 6 psi. you can send that 1000 gpm through 2,500 ft. of 5" line with a pressure of 150 psi and could do it with a 1,000 gpm pumper.

Link
posted by atomicmedia at 7:22 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

IEEE Spectrum Timeline: The Japanese Nuclear Emergency.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:23 PM on March 16, 2011

I asked my gf what she'd do. "Sharks with frickin' laser beams". She may be on to something.
posted by karst at 7:25 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

going by the data above mine, and including mine, that would be about 10 hours to fill up each? pool
posted by atomicmedia at 7:27 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

87 mSv/h @300ft hovering above the reactors, 3 mSv @1000ft, says the defense minister on NHK.
posted by Mach5 at 7:29 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

going by the data above mine, and including mine, that would be about 10 hours to fill up each? pool

If you can get the power back on in 10 hours and the pumps cleared, that works; otherwise, you're stuck there refilling the pools as they boil off, though that would be less of a strain on the water supply and logistics.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 7:29 PM on March 16, 2011

When I was in the Navy (US) we drilled all the time for this on the sub. If you lose control of the plant, if you cannot get readings and try to figure out what is going on, well it ended badly. I hope that the people that are fighting this are getting good info, and can make decisions based on that info. Helicopters are not going to help. They need power supplied back to the plant, I have not read where the have.
posted by ionized at 7:30 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Defense Minister Kitazawa's on NHK World.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 7:30 PM on March 16, 2011

Just get one of these puppys in there to power it...Hello Russia?
posted by atomicmedia at 7:32 PM on March 16, 2011

Generic Risk Insights for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors [PDF].

Okay, I'm done. I'm gonna go cry myself to sleep now.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:33 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

going by the data above mine, and including mine, that would be about 10 hours to fill up each? pool
You're assuming that the pools don't have a leak.

I am curious if those helicopters were packing cameras, and whether any photos of the (#3 maybe) top floor are put online.
posted by Popular Ethics at 7:34 PM on March 16, 2011

Scientists Project path of Radiation Plume

Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in ten days, its levels measurable but minuscule.

Anyway, back to the thread --

A couple days ago, I had someone who generally knows better, who is quite bright, ask me where the heck they got hydrogen at a nuke plant. Another coworker spent his weekend explaining that earthquakes do not happen because we've pumped out all the oil that lubricates the tectonic plates.

I think there might well be some people who require the explanations we give bright three-year-olds.

Analogies can be enlightening, I suppose, but the problem is that his analogy for Fukushima #1 makes little sense even if his Chernobyl one does. How is this like leaving the car on the tracks? If anything, it's like having the break lines cut while driving a hundred miles an hour down hill, but it's totally cool because you're not stepping on the gas anymore. And all the backup safety systems are dependant on the break lines. And you're towing a U-haul filled with nuclear waste.
posted by delmoi at 7:35 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Just get one of these puppys in there to power it...Hello Russia?
posted by atomicmedia at 7:32 PM on March 16 [+] [!]

The US Carrier could supply power, but it seems the radiation is too high, hell a sub could supply power.
posted by ionized at 7:35 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I thought I heard NYTimes say that they were sending up a heli with a camera to get detailed pix thru the damaged roof? Could be wrong.
posted by wowbobwow at 7:36 PM on March 16, 2011

wowbowwow, the US sent UAVs to take pictures and thermal readings
posted by ionized at 7:38 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Edano was just on, but he seemed pretty evasive on the issue of the discrepancy between US and Japanese statements on the #4 reactor and also on the issue of upgrading the level of the disaster.
posted by Despondent_Monkey at 7:45 PM on March 16, 2011

ob1quixote: Please thank your nuke geek for me! I just spent two hours reading this thread and wondering how there was a risk of criticality in the spent fuel pool if the neutron moderator (water) was evaporating. It's now a little clearer, but I'm still brimming with thoughts and questions:

* What quantities of water would be necessary to moderate a critical reaction? Is there a danger that there's currently not enough, but as we add more water for cooling we're actually enabling criticality excursions?

* Given that low-enriched-uranium + water is basically the recipe for a (super)critical nuclear reaction, there must be some way that spent fuel pools are kept safe under normal operating conditions, no? (Surely it's not just the physical configuration of fuel assemblies...I hope!) This story suggests that the water in the pool is borated, if that's so how are we possibly already having "brief criticality incidents"?

* I'd expect that the solution at Tokaimura would have been at much cooler temperatures than the spent fuel pool at Fukushima. Folks are already talking about cladding temperatures in the high hundreds of degrees or even low thousands! IANANE of course, but my gut tells me we already have plenty of steam bubbles, would the void coefficient of water have the same effect under these conditions?

memebake: So the pools are designed to prevent criticality - do you mean even if all the water has boiled/drained away, and the zirconium around the rods is igniting, etc?

IANANE, but: It doesn't matter how hot things get. With low-enriched uranium, which is what's in Fukushima's fuel, a critical reaction can't happen without a moderator. In case it's not clear, "moderator" here doesn't mean "something that makes the reaction more moderate" or "something that we're using to control the reaction". In this context "moderator" can be read more like "enabler of criticality", and potential moderators include water and graphite.

Presumably if all the water boiled off and escaped, there would actually be no chance remaining of a critical reaction. Which would be lovely, except that you could still have a fire that spreads nuclear material.
posted by vasi at 7:48 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Has this been posted? Animated GIF of the projected plume from what appears to be an Austrian weather service?

http://www.zamg.ac.at/pict/aktuell/20110315_fuku_Cs-137-glob_12.gif

http://www.zamg.ac.at/
posted by loquacious at 7:49 PM on March 16, 2011

vasi has the facts correct, there will be no chance of a critical reaction with the spent fuel. Fire is the big problem.
posted by ionized at 7:57 PM on March 16, 2011

Has this been posted? Animated GIF of the projected plume from what appears to be an Austrian weather service?

Oh lord. That's the last thing Americans need to see. It's like watching that one scene in The Andromeda Strain.
posted by cashman at 7:57 PM on March 16, 2011

So what the heck was that? The Japanese Defense Minister was giving a press conference, and then three minutes later apparently Edano (Cabinet Secretary) started his own press conference and NHK cut to that? And stranger still, Edano led his press conference by talking about who will take care of donated goods (prefecture governments), asking people not to donate perishables, and then did a recap of the PM's call with Obama, and only then mentioned the water drop operations. It was nuts and certainly didn't give the impression they are managing and coordinating anything.

No actual information in any of this really. Experts will review the data to see the effects of the water drop but nothing to say now. Gave some info on radiation levels from the helicopters which someone else will provide I'm sure. Water cannons planned for the afternoon. Concerns about foreign governments advising larger evacuation radii were brushed off, and the issue of the NRC chair stating that the reactor #4 storage pool was completely empty of water was more or less ignored with a comment that they are gathering information and sharing it with the parties involved and that there's been a time lag in getting information to the Americans (like that's relevant in this case). He neither confirmed nor denied the factual issue of the amount of water, if any, in the #4 storage pool before the drops.
posted by zachlipton at 7:58 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

I agree with you cashman, People already are scared here. I am in Minnesota and they are acting like it is right next door.
posted by ionized at 8:02 PM on March 16, 2011

Floam, Yes seeding cloads does work, but not perfectly. Rain falls where you do not want it, does not fall where you need it.
posted by ionized at 8:04 PM on March 16, 2011

Oh lord. That's the last thing Americans need to see. It's like watching that one scene in The Andromeda Strain.

I'm not posting it for alarmist reasons. I want someone who knows to help with analysis and feedback, or if anyone knows what/who this Austrian org is. (weather? school?)

Here's a English PDF with values.

Here's the page in Austrian.
posted by loquacious at 8:05 PM on March 16, 2011

> Has this been posted? Animated GIF of the projected plume from what appears to be an Austrian weather service?

Looks similar to this projection from the NY Times, citing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (a UN agency).

This shows that the relative level reaching North America is one millionth of the level at the source, if I'm reading their arbitrary scale right.
posted by dttocs at 8:05 PM on March 16, 2011

I wonder about the water drops. Was this just this to give us the impression that something was being done, was it covering some other action by taking our eyes off of something else or are they just flailing about flipping switches at random.
posted by humanfont at 8:05 PM on March 16, 2011

There was something upthread(?) about how rain will get stuff out of the air, but then it just ends up in the groundwater.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:06 PM on March 16, 2011

ionized: "When I was in the Navy (US) we drilled all the time for this on the sub. If you lose control of the plant, if you cannot get readings and try to figure out what is going on, well it ended badly. I hope that the people that are fighting this are getting good info, and can make decisions based on that info. Helicopters are not going to help. They need power supplied back to the plant, I have not read where they have."

Apparently they are working on dropping a new line, but no news since that came out regarding power supply.
posted by mwhybark at 8:06 PM on March 16, 2011

I keep telling people here to get a grip, we will see no radiation, none nada. I think they should be worried about the people in Japan.
posted by ionized at 8:07 PM on March 16, 2011

"So what the heck was that?"

It was a massive white wash. I don't think you can expect useful info from him anymore. That was pretty blatant.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:07 PM on March 16, 2011

So if recriticality isn't even theoretically possible, why have we spent so much time talking about recriticality? Why was it even brought up in the first place?
posted by scalefree at 8:07 PM on March 16, 2011

From the NHK noon news. Defense minister said they changed their policy today to do the air operations because the situation didn't change from yesterday (presumably he means radiation limits). Radiation limit raised to 100 milisiverts for SDF personnel. Defense Minister said "this isn't business as usual" and he and the PM decided it had to be done despite the risk. Water cannons have been mobilized from all over Japan to cool #3. Experts still working to decide what to do for #4.

Radiation measurements from TEPCO (don't know what location) 9:40 - 3782 microsiverts/h, 10:20 after water drops - 3752 microseiverts/h. No significant change.
posted by zachlipton at 8:08 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'm not posting it for alarmist reasons.

Oh loquacious I wasn't faulting you at all. Just saying seeing that will just give the alarmists more ammo. MSNBC seemed to start at the very beginning trying to go all crazy with the headlines from jump.
posted by cashman at 8:09 PM on March 16, 2011

The previous post on California nuclear power plants piqued my interest a bit being a Californian. Sorry if this strays from the subject at hand but kind of refers to unexpected events, untoward synergies.

California has several non-working reactors in various stages of decommissioning among which is PG&E Humboldt Bay #3, located near Eureka, CA, see the report which includes a mildly disconcerting discussion about the removal of the smoke stack, begun in 1998, which was identified as a possible missile hazard for the spend fuel pools if it should collapse which, ah, is not unreasonable considering the site is on a major earth quake fault, at the intersection of tectonic plates off Cape Mendocino which lead to the area being very active, relatively speaking. Create your own preposterous, earthquake off Petrolia/Ferndale/Eureka, CA, tsunami overtaking Humboldt Bay, smokestack collapsing, shattering spent fuel or spent fuel pools, etc. Thankfully such a preposterous series of events has never taken place.

The issue is moot now because decommissioning is well along and the plant fuels are now dry casked (though the pool itself is still slated for dismantling), but here is an example of a possible "wild card," a smoke stack that few would have originally identified as a danger to the spent fuel storage pools finally being identified as a potential danger. From commissioning in 1963 to 1976 when commercial operation was halted, and then for another twenty two years before being identified as an accident waiting to happen this "missile hazard" was in place.

It's often the seemingly little things.

Just saying...
posted by WinstonJulia at 8:10 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

mwhybark, I read that one the news, I was just thinking to myself that a ship just of shore could provide power to the reactors, even if the radiation was bad it could sink and be protected, while still powering the pumps
posted by ionized at 8:11 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

It seems like this "helo-and-bucket crapshoot" and "firetruck spray from a hundred yards" just reeks of "Whelp, we're fucked, so lets just do something for the cameras." If the pumps can't be restored, I wonder if is there any other viable option before the reactors just have to be encased in cement. It seems that some reactor buildings are in better shape than others, but I guess the whole area could be untouchable given the condition of the other reactors.

Will people even be able to get close enough to these reactors to encase them? This is obviously a much bigger facility than Chernobyl, so the task seems more monumental. I understand these reactors have better containments than Chernobyl, but there are more reactors to encase. (And then again, some of those containments are blown to smithereens!).

I know I'm rehashing the obvious, but it's my long-winded segue to share this video of the Chernobyl sarcophagus that seems relevant: Inside Chernobyl's Sarcophagus
posted by jstef at 8:12 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

If it was a sub it could sink, sorry. sounds like I want too sink a carrier!
posted by ionized at 8:13 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

loquacious: "Oh lord. That's the last thing Americans need to see. It's like watching that one scene in The Andromeda Strain.

I'm not posting it for alarmist reasons. I want someone who knows to help with analysis and feedback, or if anyone knows what/who this Austrian org is. (weather? school?)

Here's a English PDF with values.

Here's the page in Austrian."

Loq, crosspost the anim and host site as a query to Dr. Mass. That said, that anim looked grossly similar to Mass's trajectories, without trying to parse the numbers involved. It looks like they are trying to include some sort of intensity measure, which Mass was not.
posted by mwhybark at 8:13 PM on March 16, 2011

oops, missed the trim at the top part of the quote. sorry.
posted by mwhybark at 8:14 PM on March 16, 2011

TEPCO news conference live: We are very grateful to SDF. The situation at the plant as of 9am is as follows. #3 reactor, as we've already informed you, 16th, 8:30am-vapor or smoke was rising so we moved the workers to a safer place and decided to drop water from the air, but it was too dangerous so we suspended the plan and began preparing to spray it from the ground. We tried the drops this morning. [just recapping yesterday, nothing new]

Possible injuries at the plant: after the reactor #3 "big sound" we rescued 11 people and moved them to the daini plant. One complained of rib pain and we moved him to the hospital.

There is a lot of data. For the water drop, the water they dropped was seawater.
posted by zachlipton at 8:14 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

> Here's the page in Austrian.

Google Translated: "After the severe earthquake in Japan has occurred in the blocks of the Japanese nuclear power plant Fukushima to repeated explosions. The calculated since Saturday 12 ZAMG March, the spread of a possible radioactive cloud. [...]

"According to the current model calculations of the ZAMG revolves currently a low pressure area over Japan, which could transport possible radiation clouds to the south and thus towards Tokyo. At the same time are possible in the next few hours, light rain on the east coast of Japan. In rainfall areas, it could lead to increased radiation coming on the ground. The latest forecasts show that today at 20:00 UTC the large-scale flow again turns to West. Currently, the wind is blowing slightly in Tokyo from the east and so far today it was dry in the Japanese capital."

[Google doesn't have Austrian language translation so I tried German.]
posted by ardgedee at 8:15 PM on March 16, 2011

At the press conference just now, the helicopters have reported there is water in cooling pool.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:15 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Austrians speak German (albeit with an accent), so that worked just fine.
posted by infinitywaltz at 8:16 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

KoKuryu, good news
posted by ionized at 8:16 PM on March 16, 2011

We are very grateful to SDF.

It's been very touching over the past week how much Japanese folks (including my wife) have expressed respect and admiration for the SDF.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:17 PM on March 16, 2011

The caveat is, they have no idea how much water remains in the pools.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:18 PM on March 16, 2011

TEPCO news conference: water drop started with the third reactor. Yesterday SDF monitored the situation from the air [ed: they seem very confused, asking each other for information to complete their statement] and we saw there was water in the cooling pool in the 4th reactor and the vapor was coming from the 3rd reactor, so we decided to go with reactor #3 first.

Water canons reached here yesterday and the others came today around 11:00. 13 policemen will operate them. That's all the information we have on this.

We are currently assessing the effects of the water drop. [ed: someone else takes the mic] We have been able to confirm that there is water in the pools, but we don't know how much. This information is as of yesterday when we did the overhead survey.
posted by zachlipton at 8:18 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

> Austrians speak German

Yes, I was ribbing loquacious...
posted by ardgedee at 8:19 PM on March 16, 2011

The other thing I wanted to mention is that I think it's possible to read the video from the chopper-drops as empirical confirmation of the NRC 'no water in the pool' claim. For most of the time the helicopters were in the air, there was *no* steam coming from the pool at #4. In the picture of the plants that I referred to so, so many posts ago that showed a blackissh smoke rising from #4, there was no apparent steam.

After the best-aimed of the water drops, there was a huge plume of what had to be steam. It seemed to me to be coming from the side of the plant that we are associating with the storage pool areas now.

That seems like reasonable evidence of no prior water in that area of the plant. But I'm just some guy on the internet. YMMV.
posted by mwhybark at 8:19 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

so, maybe that steam was from #3?
posted by mwhybark at 8:21 PM on March 16, 2011

So if recriticality isn't even theoretically possible, why have we spent so much time talking about recriticality? Why was it even brought up in the first place?

Because we don't really know what we're talking about?
posted by staggernation at 8:22 PM on March 16, 2011 [15 favorites]

To clarify that KokuRyu, they saw at least some water in the pool at reactor #4. They think there was almost no water in the spent fuel pond at reactor #3.

mwhybark: That seems reasonable, but my understanding is that the white smoke has been stopping and starting semi-randomly. I have no real idea why this would be the case, but it would lead us to indicate that the lack of steam doesn't necessarily mean the complete lack of water. Does anyone know how this works?

NHK is saying the police will have to get within 30-50 meters to operate the water canons. That seems awfully close to me :(
posted by zachlipton at 8:23 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

My worry here is that they are using water cannons and air drops, is the radiation that high? If so the plant is lost and any and all measures are taking place. and I am not playing a doooooooom card.
posted by ionized at 8:26 PM on March 16, 2011

So if recriticality isn't even theoretically possible, why have we spent so much time talking about recriticality? Why was it even brought up in the first place?

Brief criticality events may be possible with the right amount of water in the pool. We are guessing that an empty pool cannot go critical but the rods would start to burn from decay heat. So it's obviously a tough situation. Empty pool and the rods burn. Add water and it may go critical.
posted by Procloeon at 8:30 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

A picture of the plant breakwaters from Google Earth.

There are a set of breakwaters that look to be about 10 feet high, plus from the actual Google Earth image you can see a secondary wall in front of the dock like a lock.

So there was some protection from tsunamis and rough waves. Clearly, though, with something this size, it was a bit like Wil. E. Coyote holding up a tiny umbrella as the boulder falls on him.

There aren't even tsunami gates I can see. Not a lot a good it did anyone (every town with them had them blown off their hinges), but that's not something you want to see, not when the plant is dependent on backup generators and a fuel depot mounted at dock level.
posted by dw at 8:31 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

I agree with you b1trot, I really think that this was a cascading problem, if you cannot get a hold on the original problem, then everthing goes too fast to control.
posted by ionized at 8:35 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Speaking of the phenomenal mismanagement that has gone on here, Kyodo news (via the Guardian) is reporting that:

"Japan's prime minister Naoto Kan was heard shouting "What the hell is going on?" during a meeting with executives from Fukushima nuclear plant operator Tepco, writes Takuya Karube of Kyodo News agency."

This was apparently just before the 6:10 explosion of the #2 reactor. Communication is clearly nonexistent.
posted by zachlipton at 8:36 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

If thats true zachlipton, that just feeds into my feeling that the have lost control, with nukes you need to have control and a lot of hard fast rules, communication is the key. I really do feel that this is a last ditch effort, hope it works.
posted by ionized at 8:41 PM on March 16, 2011

Thanks for clearing that up b1tr0t. The Fukushima reactors look so close together, but I can't find a good diagram or map of Chernobyl post-sarcophagus to get a sense of scale.
posted by jstef at 8:41 PM on March 16, 2011

IMO the helicopter behaviour and statements made by the kinds of officials and experts that would be savvy enough to recognize a bad thing when they see it, this sucker has already gone critical. What they're really saying is that in a few days it will be plain obvious to everyone what has happened: there will be no way to weasel-word it.

Perhaps the helicopter window represents the amount of time the helicopter can be out and have an acceptable risk of not receiving sustained or multiple bursts of radiation. They've got just enough shielding that if things stay relatively stable and the next spike isn't an order of magnitude greater than the last, they have a good chance of making it back and living reasonably long lives; enough time for a hero's honour, at any rate.

The spin: "coughing" criticality is just, you know, like a symptom of the flu. It's not like sustained criticality, which is kind of like hospitalized pneumonia. (The risk of dying form MSRA is like the risk of another quake…) (The plant owners are like US health insurance companies…)

I do hope I'm all wrong, but so far it just keeps getting worse.

The Emperor's message was spooky. In fact, I have to figure that's a clear sign that he has been told that the rod pools are sparking.

What a fucking mess.

OMG, I just previewed and saw someone mention dry=burning, wet=criticality. So they're dumping water because it's far better to radiate hell out of pilots than to let it disperse. Wowser.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:42 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

If it doesn't work, what's next?
posted by infinitywaltz at 8:42 PM on March 16, 2011

ionized: vasi has the facts correct, there will be no chance of a critical reaction with the spent fuel. Fire is the big problem.

Can you post why you are so confident ionized?. We're at the limits of my radiation physics knowledge (I'm a mechanical engineer, not a physicist), but I recall that spent fuel racks are VERY carefully designed to maintain adequate spacing, and "close-racked" fuel pool must use borated water and boron-plate dividers to counter the criticality risk. Criticality is listed as a risk for safe operation of a SFP in this IAEA document. So if the fuel were to be relocated (by melting, explosions or impact from the roof debris) to a location with less neutron absorbing material, and then boron-free water (fire water) was added to the pile - wouldn't there be a non-zero chance of criticality?
posted by Popular Ethics at 8:44 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

Hard to say infinty waltz, the way the reactors are built they are suppussed to contian themselves, increased radiation yes, nuke explosion no. Willdcard here is the cooling pools of the spent rods.
posted by ionized at 8:46 PM on March 16, 2011

If this thing goes sustained critical, what's next is that volunteers start building the sarcophagus.

If this thing is to not go critical, what's next is that volunteers start building a water supply to the rod pools and begin building a much smaller sarcophagus.

IMO there is no non-doomsday scenario here. There is going to be an exclusion zone, and the only questions remaining are (a) how big is it and (b) do we also have to deal with dispersal events?
posted by five fresh fish at 8:48 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

You are right Popular physics, the cooling pool is designed to keep them separate, but, and this is a big but, if the hydrogen explosions damaged the holding pools and if the fall, then the best guess is off, I do not believe anyone has been in this position,and the outcome is uncertian.
posted by ionized at 8:50 PM on March 16, 2011

Right, but here the spent fuel pools are physically damaged as the buildings have exploded and debris have fallen. The photos have shown that the equipment at the top of the reactors is all destroyed, and I've seen reports that a crane used to move the fuel fell into the fuel rod pool. It would seem that any design assumptions with the cooling pools are rather irrelevant when the pools are that damaged and we don't really know what state they are in.

Also, TEPCO themselves even said "'The possibility of recriticality is not zero," referring to the pools. If criticality was really that impossible, why would the one party here that is most interested in minimizing the situation say otherwise?
posted by zachlipton at 8:52 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

It will not be a doomsday fff, Radiation will be given off, my only worry is fires, that lofts it into the atmosphere. I think they can contain it and bury it.
posted by ionized at 8:53 PM on March 16, 2011

Hey, The danger here is explosions and fire, I do not think that will happen, Very different plant than Chernobel. Take a step back plz, Holding pools will not go critical, as far as I know, unless they have not told us the truth. Everyone needs to step back, plz. breath deep
posted by ionized at 8:58 PM on March 16, 2011

uhhh, when people who know what's going on start freaking out, maybe doomsday isn't the right word, but my lguess that it falls into the not so great side of things
posted by angrycat at 9:00 PM on March 16, 2011

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but can those of us who don't know what we're talking about try not post every little speculation that crosses our mind about this?
posted by BeerFilter at 9:01 PM on March 16, 2011 [12 favorites]

So if recriticality isn't even theoretically possible, why have we spent so much time talking about recriticality? Why was it even brought up in the first place?

Possibly the business about recriticality may have come from my misreading an article? -- If so, mea maxima culpa.

From the Automatic Earth post linked very far above. She describes what can happen progressively during a meltdown, and this is the last stage, after melting:

(Corium) Relocation to the lower plenum. "In scenarios of small-break LOCAs, there is generally. a pool of water in the lower plenum of the vessel at the time of core relocation. Release of molten core materials into water always generates large amounts of steam. If the molten stream of core materials breaks up rapidly in water, there is also a possibility of a steam explosion. During relocation, any unoxidized zirconium in the molten material may also be oxidized by steam, and in the process hydrogen is produced. Recriticality also may be a concern if the control materials are left behind in the core and the relocated material breaks up in unborated water in the lower plenum."

I took this to mean that it was all the fuel melting together that allows recriticality, but re-reading it, she does basically say "if there's water", which I didn't see the importance of when I read it initially.

I don't know if this is what started us talking about criticality in melted fuel or not.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:01 PM on March 16, 2011

Just up on BBC Live Blog:

#0355: Pressure is rising again at Reactor 3, the power station operator says - Reuters. That reactor includes plutonium and uranium in its fuel mix.

#0352: The temperature of Reactor 5 is now a growing cause for concern, a Japanese official reports. "The level of water in the reactor is lowering and the pressure is rising," he says.
posted by cdalight at 9:02 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Your right angrycat, they are scared because they do not have control of the situation. If the have lost all control of the plant, thats bad, but nowhere near a doomsday.
posted by ionized at 9:03 PM on March 16, 2011

Um, Tepco themselves said recriticality is possible. I assume this means it's definitely possible.
posted by rainy at 9:08 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

NHK World just said the water is "almost depleted." Pretty sure they were referring to the spent fuel pool in #4. And that it's important this get fixed today, hence their plan to use the police water cannons this afternoon. And that they're not sure how much the water drops have helped.

Pardon my emoticon, but D-:
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:08 PM on March 16, 2011

I need to step out now, main point, yes it is bad, no it will not kill the earth or even Japan. They are have lost control of the plant. Bad? yes, these plants, even if the are 60 years old are designed to contain the radiation. Yes radiation will be spread, but it will be mitigated. Deep breaths, lets let the experts work the problem.
posted by ionized at 9:09 PM on March 16, 2011

Words like "doomsday" are not helpful. This event is getting more and more worrisome the more of a clusterfuck it's turned into. It's really, really bad. And I think we're getting into unknown territory with the reactors and the storage pools now fully involved.

But doomsday? Doomsday is when the missiles are in the air, or when bird flu is loosed upon the world, or Lo He Comes With Clouds Descending sort of stuff. This is just Really Fucked Up.
posted by dw at 9:10 PM on March 16, 2011 [6 favorites]

This is just doomsday lite.
posted by rainy at 9:11 PM on March 16, 2011 [7 favorites]

Just reading about LEU, recriticality should not be possible under 20% enrichment without a moderator. I'm not sure what the composition of the fuel rods at #4 are.
posted by polyhedron at 9:11 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Possibly the business about recriticality may have come from my misreading an article? -- If so, mea maxima culpa.

Maybe, but it looks like TEPCO also holds some responsibility with their statement that "probability of recriticality is not zero".
posted by scalefree at 9:12 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

polyhedron: does it matter if the fuel rods in #4 are not spent, but have only been removed while the reactor underwent maintenance, as some have reported? could that be why there's a risk of recriticality?
posted by saulgoodman at 9:13 PM on March 16, 2011

(LEU is under 20, usually 3-5% for power stations)
posted by polyhedron at 9:13 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thanks dw, This is not doomsday, I worked on the nuke missiles that made doomday, this is no where near it. They will contain it.
posted by ionized at 9:14 PM on March 16, 2011

I am just going by Wikipedia, no idea saulgoodman.
posted by polyhedron at 9:14 PM on March 16, 2011

BTW, here's where in this thread it first came out that the rods in #4 were not necessarily spent.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:15 PM on March 16, 2011

stepping out, have a good night, this will be contained.
posted by ionized at 9:15 PM on March 16, 2011

I'm grateful for that gif of the path of a hypothetical plume. My family is in Hawaii and I'm not worried about them, but people there are starting to worry, so I was glad to see something reassuring for them to pass along.
posted by threeturtles at 9:16 PM on March 16, 2011

Spent fuel rod pool criticality analysis seems to come up a lot on the regulatory end of things. I am too sleepy to dig; if one of you would like to, that's your Google term.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 9:17 PM on March 16, 2011

You keep saying that ionized.

"I'm not sure that word means what you think it means"
posted by Windopaene at 9:17 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Do we know the composition of the fuel from #4? If it's just LEU recriticality will take a moderator (as per Wikipedia's page on enriched uranium)
posted by polyhedron at 9:17 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thanks dw, This is not doomsday, I worked on the nuke missiles that made doomday, this is no where near it. They will contain it.

With all due respect, there is no way to be so sure. This has been a huge clusterfuck and any statements based on assumptions that they had been properly following safety procedures or that the plants were operating in spec seem to be out the window.

It's already not contained. There is radiation leaking.
posted by empath at 9:18 PM on March 16, 2011 [7 favorites]

Ah okay - here is where the discussion of re-criticality may have come from. eriko's comment above says (my bold):

3) Can we get a criticality accident? Harder, but not impossible, and actually more likely than an explosion, but you need severe core damage for it to happen. With the control rods in and coolant limited, you have a bunch of neutron absorbers in place, and with the coolant very hot, fewer prompt neutrons are being moderated into thermal neutrons, which are the ones more likely to cause a further fissioning.

But if the heat becomes extremely high, the core can melt. Liquids flow, and they'll flow down into the bottom. Intermixed with that will be bits of control rod, but it'll basically be random. Get enough fuel material together, and not enough control material, and you can reach criticality. This is often hard on people nearby. It's not an automatic thing, though -- Chernobyl #4 melted down after the explosion, but the "corium" that flowed out of the reactor and into the basement didn't go critical. This release of core material was very limited, easily contained, and while it made that building suck, it didn't do the massive damage.

The core material blown out of the top of the reactor by the steam explosion, followed by the core material carried up in the ashes of the burning graphite moderator, that's what caused the massive release of radioactive materials. If Chernobyl had just melted down and flowed into the basement, we'd have been a lot better off.

Note that the graphite fire that put this stuff up into a fly ash plume that could carry for miles won't happen here, because there's no graphite to burn.

posted by LobsterMitten at 9:18 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

3-5% was for LWR, BWR may be higher.
posted by polyhedron at 9:19 PM on March 16, 2011

polyhedron Just reading about LEU, recriticality should not be possible under 20% enrichment without a moderator. I'm not sure what the composition of the fuel rods at #4 are.

Like you said, BWR fuel is usually 3-5% enriched, so it would need a moderator to reach criticality. Unfortunately water counts as a moderator (it's what's used in the reactor for that purpose)
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:19 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Windopaene, trust me I know what contain means
posted by ionized at 9:19 PM on March 16, 2011

And with b1tr0t comment, I am out. Thanks dark humor is good.
posted by ionized at 9:22 PM on March 16, 2011

I thought he meant you didn't know what stepping out means....
posted by PercussivePaul at 9:22 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

Well as empath noted, it is already not contained.

Nothing we've seen in the past three or four days would lead one to think this is going to go from basically out of control back into control.
posted by Windopaene at 9:22 PM on March 16, 2011

floam: "My current work in progress, sorry in advance...
Fukushima Drinking Game Pressure rising 1 shot Edano press conference 1 shot NISA press conference 1 shot >100 mSv/hr measurement 1 shot Something dropped from sky 1 shot Temperatures rising at someplace we never heard of 1 shot Some pumping fails 1 shot Loud sound, white smoke 2 shots Evacuation 3 shots
"

I'm thinking Midori.
posted by mwhybark at 9:24 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I thought he meant you didn't know what that means...
posted by mazola at 9:25 PM on March 16, 2011

I am so not going to enjoy the hysteria of the U.S. media tomorrow morning. Night all.
posted by angrycat at 9:25 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

3-5% was for LWR, BWR may be higher

It's 3-5% for BWRs as well. BWRs, along with PWRs (pressurized water reactors), are the two types of LWRs currently operating worldwide.
posted by leslietron at 9:25 PM on March 16, 2011

It will be this same news that we are all reading and discussing right now.

The "news" is waaaay behind what we are all getting here and at the sites we are all scanning constantly.
posted by Windopaene at 9:26 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

ionized: stepping out, have a good night, this will be contained.

The fuel pools are all outside of containment, Reactor 2 already has a failed containment, and studies have warned that even an undamaged containment probably cannot contain a fully melted core. Hopefully you're right, but I wouldn't be so confident.
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:26 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Thanks for clearing things up guys, too much jargon lately. Especially the flub with moderator/absorbers earlier Popular Ethics, I sure felt like a heel.
posted by polyhedron at 9:28 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

More bad news from the BBC's liveblog:

0352: The temperature of Reactor 5 is now a growing cause for concern, a Japanese official reports. "The level of water in the reactor is lowering and the pressure is rising," he says.
0355: Pressure is rising again at Reactor 3, the power station operator says - Reuters. That reactor includes plutonium and uranium in its fuel mix.
0358: The US is chartering aircraft to Tokyo help Americans leave Japan - Reuters, quoting state department.
0401: Ceiling of Reactor 4 reduced to frame, power station station operator Tepco says

Although the bit about Reactor 4 might actually be good news if it means they can get to the spent fuel pool now.

Any comments on the situation with the mixed fuel in Reactor 3?
posted by dialetheia at 9:33 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

With all due respect, there is no way to be so sure. This has been a huge clusterfuck and any statements based on assumptions that they had been properly following safety procedures or that the plants were operating in spec seem to be out the window.

At this point, everything is out the window. This has been possibly the biggest cascading failure in modern history, with problems and missteps every point along the way. The plant could have a perfect safety record and this could have happened. It could have not been hit by a 30 foot tsunami and this could have happened.

I don't think anyone knows what happens next. We are seriously in some unknown territory. What we do know, though, is every one of these nuclear crises always ends the same way: containment.

And b1tr0t has it right: It'll eventually go in a box; we just need to figure out how big the box will need to be.

Again, this isn't doomsday. Japan is not going to turn into a nuclear wasteland. Even with the US 50km exclusion zone you can fit it inside the most highly contaminated areas around Chernobyl. We just have to hope they can catch a break soon.
posted by dw at 9:34 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Forecast for Plume's Path Is a Function of Wind and Weather

A United Nations forecast of the possible movement of the radioactive plume coming from crippled Japanese reactors shows it churning across the Pacific, and touching the Aleutian Islands on Thursday before hitting Southern California late Friday.

Did I miss it or did they not say a thing about what levels of radiation will likely hit the states? It would have been nice for them to say something about that, likening it to an x-ray, or a flight, or whatever, so people don't just see "radiation coming from impending nuclear meltdown" and that's all they have. Maybe I missed it.
posted by cashman at 9:37 PM on March 16, 2011

To me, 'containment' means 'no significant radiation leakage, no adverse health affects and no evacuations and exclusion zones.' We're well past that.

I mean obviously it's not going to be ''the blob that ate japan'. But it's already outside of containment and getting worse.
posted by empath at 9:37 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

I would this that this particular part of Japan has already been turned into a nuclear wasteland.
posted by Windopaene at 9:38 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Forecast for Plume's Path Is a Function of Wind and Weather

A United Nations forecast of the possible movement of the radioactive plume coming from crippled Japanese reactors shows it churning across the Pacific, and touching the Aleutian Islands on Thursday before hitting Southern California late Friday.

Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable.

ftfy
posted by warbaby at 9:38 PM on March 16, 2011 [6 favorites]

Sorry, 50 MILES, or 80km. Still fits inside the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl plant with room to spare.
posted by dw at 9:39 PM on March 16, 2011

Did I miss it or did they not say a thing about what levels of radiation will likely hit the states?

From everything I've read, even like a worst case 'everything melts down and then explodes' scenario, the US is too far away for any significant concentration of radiation to make it across the pacific.
posted by empath at 9:39 PM on March 16, 2011

What the hell BP???!!! The article says over and over there is no danger to the southwestern US, and that's the quote you pull?
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:39 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

I would this that this particular part of Japan has already been turned into a nuclear wasteland.

I think that is WAY overstating the case.
posted by empath at 9:40 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Did I miss it or did they not say a thing about what levels of radiation will likely hit the states?

At the very least, I hope a third-party is monitoring radiation levels on the west coast, because it seems difficult to trust the official story at this point, whether you're living in post-Fukushima Japan or in post-Katrina United States. Independent verification of facts is key at this juncture.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:40 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Really? I don't think so. Do you think this plant is ever going to be used for anything ever again? Not in our lifetimes...
posted by Windopaene at 9:43 PM on March 16, 2011

"This has been possibly the biggest cascading failure in modern history, with problems and missteps every point along the way. The plant could have a perfect safety record and this could have happened."

QFT. Murphy of the eponymous Law has really been doing a bang-up job here. I think RISKS-Digest just got enough fresh material for many, many issues to come.
posted by Asparagirl at 9:45 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

Japan has a major power issue moving forward. If they could keep reactor 6 working they probably would for a while. Complete and total speculation.
posted by polyhedron at 9:46 PM on March 16, 2011

It's words like "doomsday" and "wasteland" that need more careful defining, not "containment."
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 9:50 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

Do you think this plant is ever going to be used for anything ever again?

Believe it or not, Chernobyl ran for another 10 years after the accident.
posted by empath at 9:51 PM on March 16, 2011

"The plant could have a perfect safety record and this could have happened."

I agree, but it should be pointed out - Both the plant and the company have a history of lies and deception about maintenance and safety. I think it's safe to assume maintenance was neglected here, and regulations were ignored. What we may be seeing is not so much "no one could have foreseen this", and more like "surely they saw this coming".
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:52 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

If Reactors 5 and 6 end up being serviceable, they will be put back on the grid ASAP. The plant will work again, even with only one reactor.

That's what happened at TMI, that's what happened at Chernobyl. With exposure precautions and distancing, workers should be able to handle those two with no issues.
posted by dw at 9:53 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Words like "doomsday" and "wasteland" don't need defining. They just need to be used less.

When I think "wasteland," I think vast swath of poisonous nothingness, not a single abandoned and sealed industrial site.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 9:54 PM on March 16, 2011

We are truly tools of our own tools now aren't we?
posted by saulgoodman at 9:54 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Radiation "leakage" is not a technically accurate or useful term. Please stop using it.

Radiation emissions from the plant are one thing.

Dispersion of radioactive materials is quite another entirely.

If we can limit ourselves to the first of those (ie. the plant itself remains "hot" as hell, but isn't spitting gases or ashes into the atmosphere), we are considerably less fucked, and it's possible that the exclusion zone can be rather small. At this point, this would be a best-case scenario (the areas near Chernobyl that did not have radioactive ash rain down on them are still relatively safe, as long as you are also aware of where it is not safe to go)

I don't think we know just yet how many radioactive products have spewed out of the plant. I hope for everybody's sake that the quantities are small, and that the spent fuel pools can be brought back under control, so that it remains that way.
posted by schmod at 9:55 PM on March 16, 2011 [7 favorites]

Or it could be that nuclear energy is worth the trade off. As others have said, this is bad, but even a worse case scenario isn't as bad as the BP oil spill or the amount of toxins and radiation that are released every day by coal plants.
posted by empath at 9:56 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Looking at the pictures, I suppose there's a chance 5 and 6 might stay operational, as they are somewhat removed.
posted by Windopaene at 9:56 PM on March 16, 2011

What we may be seeing is not so much "no one could have foreseen this", and more like "surely they saw this coming".

It's a mix of both. Megathrust quake + 30 foot tsunami followed by a set of cascading failures. This was a rare perfect storm event, but it's increasingly obvious TEPCO has mismanaged this plant and mismanaged this disaster.
posted by dw at 9:56 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Japan has a major power issue moving forward. If they could keep reactor 6 working they probably would for a while. Complete and total speculation.

Near term, yes. I expect they'll engage on a project of widespread adoption of mini-reactors in short order. Bill Gates sees the writing on the wall, he's already talking about getting into the business. How long until the first ones go online?
posted by scalefree at 9:57 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Do you think this plant is ever going to be used for anything ever again?

Believe it or not, Chernobyl ran for another 10 years after the accident.

Chernobyl had other intact reactors (and an energy demand that couldn't be met any other way.

As for the strength of a theoretical (for now) plume that would reach the US, the UN animation doesn't specifically show actual units, because it's meant as a guide for determining when specific tracking stations should be able to pick up radiation. However, they have a color table of 'arbitrary units'. Their implication is that the radiation should be quite dilute, in the event of a plume.
posted by ZeusHumms at 9:58 PM on March 16, 2011

dw: perfect storm means unrelated problems coinciding, in this case the tsunami was caused by the quake, and blackout (and failed generators) were caused by tsunami.
posted by rainy at 9:59 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Amazing to think there was a time in the recent past when humanity not only didn't need nuclear generators at all, but even thrived without them. For the vast majority of our recorded history, we didn't rely on electrical power at all, and yet here we are, absurdly, less than two hundred years later, and we absolutely can't survive without it and are willing to resort to all sorts of technologies with the potential to kill us or worse render our world unlivable to get it. It's just kind of stunning how completely we're owned by our current lifestyle choices and our current technologies. And it took so little time to get to this point.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:04 PM on March 16, 2011 [10 favorites]

I just want to address the comparison between this and Katrina. We have way more info about this situation than we did during Katrina, even if the official story is equally duplicitous, and there is certainly more official relief here than there was there. I appreciate the mistrust of authority and I share it, but there seem to me to be large differences in the way things have progressed. Sorry if this is a derail and I appreciate allthe info here and am sharing it with my friends. Thanks you so much for the level headed discussion.
posted by Errant at 10:05 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

Near term, yes. I expect they'll engage on a project of widespread adoption of mini-reactors in short order. Bill Gates sees the writing on the wall, he's already talking about getting into the business. How long until the first ones go online?

Um, this article is a year old, and Gates has been investing in a number of small-scall reactor projects for a while now, including TerraPower. You make this sound like some sort of shrewd disaster profiteering.
posted by brightghost at 10:08 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

For the vast majority of our recorded history, we didn't rely on electrical power at all, and yet here we are, absurdly, less than two hundred years later, and we absolutely can't survive without it and are willing to resort to all sorts of technologies with the potential to kill us or worse render our world unlivable to get it. .

There were approximately 1 billion humans on the planet in 1800. There are 7 billion today. [ wiki ]
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:09 PM on March 16, 2011 [13 favorites]

Bill Gates sees the writing on the wall, he's already talking about getting into the business. How long until the first ones go online?

I think India is supposed to have a few online in the near term, possibly China too. But planning and building a nuclear power plant takes a long, long time, and given the situation in Japan, there will need to be a lot more consideration of quake-proofing and tsunami-proofing any potential new plant, no matter how big.
posted by dw at 10:11 PM on March 16, 2011

But generally I think you're right that there's no way Japan's response to this will be a move away from nuclear, scalefree; hopefully it will just be an aggressive pursuit of safety standards, and hopefully (IMO) that can serve as a example to counter the fear-mongering challenges to nuclear that are already emerging in the rest of the world.
posted by brightghost at 10:11 PM on March 16, 2011

This is a serious question: should we have stayed at steampunk level of development?
posted by rainy at 10:11 PM on March 16, 2011

Amazing to think there was a time in the recent past when humanity not only didn't need nuclear generators at all, but even thrived without them. For the vast majority of our recorded history, we didn't rely on electrical power at all, and yet here we are, absurdly, less than two hundred years later, and we absolutely can't survive without it and are willing to resort to all sorts of technologies with the potential to kill us or worse render our world unlivable to get it. It's just kind of stunning how completely we're owned by our current lifestyle choices and our current technologies. And it took so little time to get to this point.

Sure, we could role back the clock to before we used nuclear power -- hell before we used electrical power plants at all. First we have to kill off 5 billion people or so. Where do you think we should start?
posted by empath at 10:12 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

I don't think it's any better when people routinely die due to heat or cold, let alone all the other things electrical power gives us dominion over.
posted by polyhedron at 10:13 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

We should have turned Prometheus away with his plutonium-laced gifts.
posted by rainy at 10:15 PM on March 16, 2011

I'm running calculations on the temperature changes in the #5 and #6 spent fuel pools and would be greatly appreciative if anyone that has information regarding a Tinfinity value I can use when modeling convection on the surface of the water remaining in the pools.

Also looking for current water levels in the pool, if known. Ditto for tips on how to model the structure of the pool itself. Currently envisioning a levitating pool with 5 feet thick concrete pool liner and a stainless shell outside of that of unknown thickness and a surface open to atmospheric pressure/temp.

Any other ME, ChemE, or NukeE on the thread that wants to help out feel free to memail me, like I said, my thermo/heat transfer is rusty and I'm probably getting more than one assumption wrong, but I think there's enough information to figure out how much power is being put out by the pools with a decent amount of precision.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:17 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Of course I didn't preview: Tinfinity is the temperature of the surroundings in close proximity to the pool, basically air temp.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:18 PM on March 16, 2011

Good god. There are still people stranded in the exclusion zone.
posted by brightghost at 10:18 PM on March 16, 2011 [4 favorites]

We need to ramp UP our power needs to really get the geniuses enthused about finally cracking the technologies that give us more power for less impact on the environment.

(saulgoodman - I hope you at least turned your mind a bit to the method by which you distributed your pronouncement - I'd call it irony if it were)
posted by birdsquared at 10:18 PM on March 16, 2011

This is a serious question: should we have stayed at steampunk level of development?

I'm glad our medical technology didn't.
posted by Adventurer at 10:19 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Um, this article is a year old, and Gates has been investing in a number of small-scall reactor projects for a while now, including TerraPower. You make this sound like some sort of shrewd disaster profiteering.

He was already moving on this for a while now, yes; didn't mean to imply he only started in the wake of the disaster. Profiteering has unsavory connotations but I'm sure this isn't hurting his plans.
posted by scalefree at 10:20 PM on March 16, 2011

This is a serious question: should we have stayed at steampunk level of development?

The irony of posting this to the internet, it burns.
posted by Justinian at 10:21 PM on March 16, 2011 [10 favorites]

So? We also have at least that many more televisions and cars, and I'm guessing they account for a lot more of our energy consumption than mere food production does. We don't strictly need either of those things to survive. It's definitely not the case that the bulk of our energy consumption is driven by the survival needs of the current human population.

It's bullshit, empath, that we would have to kill 6 billion people to drastically reduce our energy consumption. Bullshit.

This is a serious question: should we have stayed at steampunk level of development

Maybe, if that means what I think it does. We'd be much better off using technology more discriminatingly (especially energy consuming tech), conserving our energy for use in very targeted, rational ways. Specifically, prioritizing necessary uses of energy first (those required for survival), and then devoting only the barest resources we can to inessential uses of energy. Don't do away with technology completely, just reverse the consumer oriented industrial model to favor products designed for extended use, find ways to make them as energy efficient as possible (and use renewable energy tech like solar to power convenience technologies more often). But our economic needs won't let us do what we need to do, apparently.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:21 PM on March 16, 2011

I say 2011 is as good as civilization has ever managed.

I don't know if I'd go that far. However, I really doubt anyone demanding some sort of return to the pre-Industrial world wants to do it without all the medical advances that have come since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Antibiotics, insulin, retrovirals, cancer drugs....
posted by dw at 10:21 PM on March 16, 2011

While sometimes the tension gets too high here and the break is welcome, we should stay on topic as LobsterMitten has reminded.
posted by polyhedron at 10:23 PM on March 16, 2011

The irony of posting this to the internet, it burns.

No, we'S want to keep as much of the internet as practical, because its benefits far outweigh its costs. In fact, the internet could help mitigate a lot of the problems the reduction in casual automobile use would create.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:24 PM on March 16, 2011

Maybe let's keep this thread for talking about the immediate situation at the reactor and we could move the "what form of power should we use, is nuclear worth it" discussion to the Meta thread which was sort of about that discussion?

I completely agree that this thread is most valuable when it is used to keep everyone informed and not to bicker and snark at each other like we're starting to do now - but the mods have been shutting down the nukes argument in the gray all day, so I'm not sure the MeTa thread is the place to go either, sadly.
posted by dialetheia at 10:24 PM on March 16, 2011

dhartung: Energy consumption actually varies considerably even across the developed world.

Well, scanning through that list for the 'developed' entries doesn't show much variation to me, and it seems to map generally to climate demands. That said, I agree this discussion should move somewhere else.
posted by brightghost at 10:24 PM on March 16, 2011

BBC liveblog:

0515: It is the ''breakdown of essential services'', not worries over radiation, that is prompting Australia to advise its citizens to leave Tokyo and its vicinity, Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd says. ''There are problems in terms of electricity, power supply, as well as a whole range of other things as well," he says. "Schools being closed... trains not functioning properly."
posted by cashman at 10:24 PM on March 16, 2011

but what polyhedron said is probably right.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:25 PM on March 16, 2011

Maybe let's keep this thread for talking about the immediate situation at the reactor and we could move the "what form of power should we use, is nuclear worth it" discussion to the Meta thread which was sort of about that discussion?

Didn't even know it existed. I've said my piece, it's not a big thing for me.
posted by scalefree at 10:25 PM on March 16, 2011

No, we'S want to keep as much of the internet as practical, because its benefits far outweigh its costs. In fact, the internet could help mitigate a lot of the problems the reduction in casual automobile use would create.

I'm a big fan of people driving less, but that has nothing to do with nuclear power or power plants in general.
posted by empath at 10:26 PM on March 16, 2011

If MeTa is out, IRC is perfect for such offtopic discussion.
posted by polyhedron at 10:26 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Energy consumption actually varies considerably even across the developed world. It's entirely possible that we could choose a sustainable development path that conserves vastly more energy than we try to now and reduces the demand for new power generation facilities. We just need to choose that path.

Yes! If we set a realistic price on carbon, and stop exempting nukes from insurance, the price of electricity will rise, which will create incentives for wind, solar, and conservation. As long as the price increase is gradual, I don't really understand where the problem is.

Cost estimates for new resources, for reference. Conservation should be cheaper than any of these.
posted by neal at 10:27 PM on March 16, 2011

need to bow out and go to bed now anyway.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:27 PM on March 16, 2011

Well, scanning through that list for the 'developed' entries doesn't show much variation to me,

Really!?!?! You don't consider 50% more to be a big variation?
Hint, compare Canada to Norway and Sweden, or compare the USA to Britain or France.
posted by Chuckles at 10:33 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

saulgoodman, what do you think the toll of Japan's earthquake and tsunami would have been without the technologies developed over the past 200 years? How much closer would it have been to the devastation we saw in Haiti last year, or following the Aceh tsunami seven years ago?

Communication, medical care, transport of relief supplies, the Japanese engineering that preserved so many buildings and lives... the list would go on and on if you stopped to tally up all the ways in which technologies have mitigated this disaster, terrible as it is.
posted by torticat at 10:33 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

I just started #fukushima-ot on irc.slashnet.org if you're really dying for some speculation or not-directly-relevant discussion and can't find an appropriate venue. Join #mefi while you're there.
posted by polyhedron at 10:37 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

So, hasn't anything anything exploded or caught on fire recently that we can talk about? It's quiet out there...too quiet.
posted by scalefree at 10:52 PM on March 16, 2011

As long as it's quiet, I have a question.

The BBC reported this a little while ago, after the helicopter drops:
0352: The temperature of Reactor 5 is now a growing cause for concern, a Japanese official reports. "The level of water in the reactor is lowering and the pressure is rising," he says.

Do they really mean Reactor 5? I thought the spent fuel pools were the only problems in 5 and 6, and the reactors were in cold shutdown. But aren't the pools open to the air, and if so, how could the pressure be rising?
posted by dialetheia at 10:57 PM on March 16, 2011

This has been possibly the biggest cascading failure in modern history, with problems and missteps every point along the way.

Quite possibly, but here's a scary thought: the most radioactive bits of Sellafield running under normal operating conditions are actually more deadly than this complex. So it could be worse, Japan could have let the Brits build their reactors.

It's just kind of stunning how completely we're owned by our current lifestyle choices and our current technologies.

He says, sitting at his computer in Florida poking words into a server thousands of kilometres away so they can be transmitted around the world, funded by his living as a programmer, a profession that exists solely as a function of those power-hungry technologies.

But hey, if you want to wade through horseshit, decline vaccines and antibiotics, light your house with candles or gas, and retain to working in the fields, ain't no-one stopping you.

This is a serious question: should we have stayed at steampunk level of development?

You mean coal-fired and city streets thick with horseshit? Not so much, no.
posted by rodgerd at 10:58 PM on March 16, 2011 [6 favorites]

dialetheia: I was wondering the same thing. Probably a mistake in reporting, unless the pool is closed off from the air to limit loss of water.. but that doesn't seem to make sense as it will raise temperature and pressure.
posted by rainy at 11:03 PM on March 16, 2011

Do they really mean Reactor 5? I thought the spent fuel pools were the only problems in 5 and 6, and the reactors were in cold shutdown. But aren't the pools open to the air, and if so, how could the pressure be rising?

I would like to know this as well. I am confused. Are the pools containing the spent fuel open to the air? I didn't realize this, but I started wondering how helicopters dropping water could be effective in any way if that weren't true and came up empty. Can anyone clarify this?
posted by cj_ at 11:03 PM on March 16, 2011

...should we have stayed at steampunk level of development?

I'm glad our medical technology didn't.

My god, man, we're losing her! Hot glue some watch faces and brass pipes to her, stat!
posted by evidenceofabsence at 11:04 PM on March 16, 2011 [29 favorites]

rodgerd: no, I mean technology as advanced or more advanced as ours, but based on steam.
posted by rainy at 11:04 PM on March 16, 2011

These reactors were ultimately producing steam power.
posted by mccarty.tim at 11:06 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Yeah but then it was converted to electricity.. fail.
posted by rainy at 11:07 PM on March 16, 2011

You can't burn steam, it's not a fuel source. What do you propose as the fuel for these engines?
posted by scalefree at 11:09 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

USA Today has an article about Reactor 5 losing coolant as well. My apologies for using USA Today as a source. I hate it, too.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 11:09 PM on March 16, 2011

Maybe it is actually the reactor?
Even in cold shutdown the fuel is still hot, just not as hot (after all, it would be at this level of heat when it was moved to the spent fuel storage pool, and that fuel is still hot enough to need a lot of water covering it, take 2-3 years to cool enough to be put in dry storage based on one source I looked at).
Plus even if it's in cold shutdown, you still need to keep it covered with water so that its casing (made of zincaloy) doesn't start reacting with air to form hydrogen. (which vents up into the outer building, which eventually explodes as we've seen at the other reactors, if I have been following this correctly)

Maybe they had previously been able to maintain a high enough water level in reactor #5 to keep the fuel rods submerged, but there has been a leak or something, and the water level has gone down?
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:10 PM on March 16, 2011

rodgerd: no, I mean technology as advanced or more advanced as ours, but based on steam.
posted by rainy at 4:04 PM on March 17 [+] [!]

Oh, so like in a fantasy novel, then.
posted by DoctorFedora at 11:11 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

cj_: I assume they are opened to air through filters; water level normally lowers by 6" an hour. If they closed it off, water loss would stop but temperature and pressure would rise. I'm betting on faulty reporting unless we get confirmation from other sources.
posted by rainy at 11:11 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

> Yeah but then it was converted to electricity.. fail.

Jesus Fuck, take this elsewhere. Masturbatory conversations about victorian cyber punk aren't needed right now.
posted by mrzarquon at 11:11 PM on March 16, 2011 [7 favorites]

scalefree: I don't know maybe solar and/or hydro and natural gas?
posted by rainy at 11:12 PM on March 16, 2011

mrzarquon: I'm just answering and there's no other news.
posted by rainy at 11:13 PM on March 16, 2011

Did I miss they dumped water on #3 at 0600 UTC or so, according to NHK.
posted by mrzarquon at 11:14 PM on March 16, 2011

IRC is made for masturbatory conversation. #fukushima-ot on irc.slashnet.org:6667. Clients exist for everything from your coffeepot to your smartphone, no excuses.
posted by polyhedron at 11:15 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

NYT graphic of exclusion zone, stay-inside zone, and US evacuation zone. Points out that the latter incorporates a total population of around 1.9 million.
posted by dhartung at 11:15 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'm not sure what the actual source is, but I keep finding the same general report about reactors 5 and 6 having temperature increases in the storage pools above 60 degrees C. CNN, CNET and others all have similar reports.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 11:18 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Masturbatory conversations about victorian cyber punk aren't needed right now.

...Or ever

posted by RolandOfEld at 11:19 PM on March 16, 2011 [5 favorites]

Points out that the latter incorporates a total population of around 1.9 million.

Not to mention a lot of agricultural land.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:19 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Tomorrow, my local dead-tree newspaper will interview the President of Pacific Gas and Electric Co., operator of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant 6 miles from my home. They're taking suggestions for questions on their website here and the quality of what they're getting is usual-internet-level-CRAP compared to what is being discussed here.

If you had the ear of a high-ranking official of a U.S. nuclear power plant what would you ask him? Feel free to post it here (or even MeFiMail me) and I'll pass it on (at my discretion), giving you and MetaFilter full credit. (Or should I take this to MetaTalk?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:21 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

christ, dhartung, I saw the bullseye thumb on NYT earlier but was chasing other stuff. No wonder the Japanese government has a smaller exclusion zone, there's no way they could handle that many additional evacuees in the context of the quake and screwed up distro in the zone.
posted by mwhybark at 11:23 PM on March 16, 2011

Also looking for current water levels in the pool, if known. [+ air temp]

Seems like the crucial fact, which we can't know, is whether/how much the spent fuel pools are leaking because they were cracked in either the earthquake or subsequent explosions. And one of the few things TEPCO has been perfectly frank about is that they can't even check this due to radiation.

There were some reasonable arguments made for keeping spent fuel pools near the reactor, but having them many stories up in the air still seems like idiocy. Way too many things could cause a leak, including dropping fuel assemblies as you put them in.
posted by msalt at 11:25 PM on March 16, 2011

If you had the ear of a high-ranking official of a U.S. nuclear power plant what would you ask him? Feel free to post it here (or even MeFiMail me) and I'll pass it on (at my discretion), giving you and MetaFilter full credit.

How much spent fuel is stored at Diablo Canyon? Is it in any containment whatsoever? What is the backup plan for keeping it covered with cool water in the case of a power outage, such as a large earthquake or tsunami might cause? What are your backups for reactor damage? Why did you think it was a good idea to build a nuclear plant in a place named for SATAN?
posted by msalt at 11:27 PM on March 16, 2011 [17 favorites]

Do they really mean Reactor 5? I thought the spent fuel pools were the only problems in 5 and 6, and the reactors were in cold shutdown. But aren't the pools open to the air, and if so, how could the pressure be rising?

Wikipedia's reactor status summary is handy for "what the hell unit is doing what" questions. Unit 5 is not defueled, unlike Unit 4; the water level in the reactor vessel appears to be dropping. I am uncertain of what that means other than "Unit 5's losing water in the reactor vessel somehow."

As far as the spent fuel pool's location, on the BWR-3 Mk I, it is inside the reactor building and covered from the elements. This is a slightly clearer diagram of a GE BWR-3 Mk. I than that 1970s-tacular painting that's in all the GE official stuff. You can see the "refueling platform" there; Nuclear Tourist has a picture of a typical BWR refueling floor here.

I don't think we know if the refueling platform is intact in any of the "severely damaged" reactors. If it is, there is a chance that the pools are exposed or otherwise damaged.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 11:29 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

Er, if it isn't, rather.

Also, Invincible Iron Man #502 and Uncanny X-Force #5.1 this week? Pretty darn good comics.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 11:30 PM on March 16, 2011

Well, if you go to this site and look for these characters "日立市久慈" - you'll get live geiger counter readings supplied by the government of Ibaraki prefecture. Those first three characters stand for Hitachi city, which is labelled in the NYT graphic. Readings are fluctuating at about .6 µsievert/hr at that one site (assuming the equivalency of a Gray for a Sievert), and anywhere from .1 to .9 µsievert/hr elsewhere on their map, so it's not likely that Japan is risking these people's health at this stage.
posted by birdsquared at 11:31 PM on March 16, 2011

My wife just bought us tickets for some sort of concert to be held at St. James on Saturday.

Handel's Dixit Dominus and Chandos Anthem No.8

I like classical music and Handel just fine, and truth be told, St. James is a fine spot to take it in. But usually I won't to go to a church to see a show, although I have been know to be a grownup and go with my in-laws or my parents if need be.

I rather wish they had some more downbeat stuff on the program, because the show's gonna be about Japan for me. I am so deeply non-religious. But I am not deeply non-music, and Handel's music is a good thing. Listening to it in a reflective environment, even one that reflects a ritual practice that I'm not a big fan of, will be a Thing to be Grateful For, and a Place to Feel Sorrow.
posted by mwhybark at 11:34 PM on March 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thanks, msalt, good questions, my brain hasn't been functioning 100% lately. As for the last question, it has been asked repeatedly for the 30+ years this plant has been in operation and the general answer is either officially "It's JUST a name" or, unofficially "Cool, ain't it?"

Notable about this plant is the fact that it's listed below several non-California plants for "earthquake vulnerablity" (but above San Onofre). And a tsunami is a virtual non-issue because the whole plant is built on a bluff more than 80 feet above the beach (and twice the height of the Japan tsunami... if a wave ever reaches that high there, there wouldn't likely be anyone still alive ANYWHERE to notice).
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:36 PM on March 16, 2011

well it is nice to know it is never to late to earn a quick buck -- the Japanese Yen is appreciating on the assumption that "Japanese companies will want to repatriate funds overseas to pay for the impact of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis." via guardian live update blog (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/16/japan-nuclear-crisis-tsunami-aftermath-live)
posted by Shit Parade at 11:38 PM on March 16, 2011

ooh! I just saw the NHK CGI! Everything's fine people, we have SFX on the case.

I also liked the dioramas, though.
posted by mwhybark at 11:43 PM on March 16, 2011

RolandofEld, I've been looking for info on the construction specs for the spent fuel storage pools, coming up empty. This document: Further Analysis of Extended Storage of Spent Fuel, from the IAEA in 1997, talks about the water chemistry and in general terms about the liners and materials, but I haven't found dimensions in there.

Also found this report (Resolution of Generic Safety Issues: Issue 82: Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools, report by the NRC, possibly linked above) which does the cost/risk/benefit calculation on whether to require additional safety measures for these pools - they figure what events could cause problems with the pools and how likely those are and etc. It has this sensible description of "what happens if we have to refill the spent fuel pool by fire hose?":

Although one would expect that the failure probability associated with bringing in a hose (over a period of four or more days) would be very low, it must also be remembered that working next to 385,000 gallons of potentially contaminated boiling water on top of a 10-story building is not a trivial problem.

posted by LobsterMitten at 11:53 PM on March 16, 2011 [3 favorites]

"Could it happen here?" Well, it kinda did, just outside L.A. 52 years ago (kept secret for 20 years, still in dispute today regarding clean-up). Fortunately, that happened a year before my family moved to L.A. from Cleveland...
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:53 PM on March 16, 2011 [2 favorites]

You can use this IRC web client for your Off-Topic outbursts and discussions.
posted by polyhedron at 12:11 AM on March 17, 2011

What is TEPCO, exactly? Government, private company, do they own/run other power stations?

Fukushima Daiichi are old BWR setups built decades ago - are there more recent reactors in other places in Japan? I keep hearing terms like 'pebble-bed' and IFR, without knowing what they are. Are they in production or merely theoretical? If they're still theoretical then what's the type currently being built?
posted by harriet vane at 12:17 AM on March 17, 2011

NHK is reporting that the fire-fighting ground-based water effort is about to start. I see white vapor from the remains of reactor 3 from the live feed.
posted by gen at 12:18 AM on March 17, 2011

"The plant could have a perfect safety record and this could have happened."

oh jeez this news hasn't hit here yet?

WikiLeaks: Fukushima nuclear plant owner falsified inspection records
posted by kaspen at 12:20 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

Le Monde liveblog on the role of robotics:

7:45 CET [Comment from user charles]
Maybe this is a little naive, but I don't understand why they're not using human-controlled robotic devices. Especially in Japan, a country that I believe leads in this technology.

7:45 CET
@Charles: Indeed, although Japan is the homeland of robotics, only France and Germany have robots specially prepared to operate in nuclear plants. The IAEA has sent a request to the countries that have robots and unmanned vehicles capable of functioning in a highly radioactive environment.

The CEO of Éléctricité de France has offered to send the French robots to the Japanese operator Tepco.

07:45 CET
This paradox is explained in this excellent article from Atlantico: "The Japanese have expended a lot of effort on personal robotics for comfort and pleasure, because that's where there's an economically attractive mass market. On the other hand, they've worked very little, maybe even not at all, on intervention robots, which still remains a niche market."

posted by neal at 12:21 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

What is TEPCO, exactly? Government, private company, do they own/run other power stations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company
posted by gen at 12:21 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

"The CEO of Éléctricité de France has offered to send the French robots to the Japanese operator Tepco."
Why so fast? Couldnt he wait a few more days?
posted by dougiedd at 12:28 AM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

Bingo, some specs. Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, a report from the NRC

In some reactor designs [such as the ones at Fukushima] the spent fuel pools are contained within the reactor building, which is typically constructed of about 2 feet of reinforced concrete.[...]

The typical spent fuel pool is 40 feet (12 meters) deep and can be 40 or more feet in each horizontal dimension. The pool walls are constructed of reinforced concrete typically having a thickness between 4 and 8 feet (1.2 to 2.4 meters). The pools contain a 1/4 to 1/2 inch (6 to 13 mm) thick stainless steel liner, which is attached to the walls with studs embedded in the concrete. The pools also contain vertical storage racks for holding spent and fresh fuel assemblies, and some pools have a gated compartment to hold a spent fuel storage cask while it is being loaded and sealed.

The storage racks are about 13 feet (4 meters) in height and are installed near the bottom of the spent fuel pool. The racks have feet to provide space between their bottoms and the pool floor. There is also space between the sides of the racks and the steel pool liners to allow for circulation of water. There are about 26 feet (8meters) of water above the top of the spent fuel racks. [...]

[...]nearly all pools contain high-density spent fuel racks. These racks allow approximately five times as many assemblies to be stored in the pool as would have been possible with the original racks, which had open lateral channels between the fuel assemblies to enhance water circulation.

That document also says (two pages earlier):

[Normal] Pool heat loads can be quite high, as exemplified by a "typical" boiling water reactor (BWR)... [An imagined case study by the NRC, a storage pool which has 3000 assemblies stored in a pool that's 35'x40'x39' with a water capacity of almost 400,000 gallons] the total decay heat in the spent fuel pool is 3.9 megawatts ten days after a one-third core offload. The vast majority of this heat is from decay in the newly discharged spent fuel. Heat loads would be substantially higher in spent fuel pools that contained a full-core offload.

posted by LobsterMitten at 12:30 AM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

Really!?!?! You don't consider 50% more to be a big variation?
Hint, compare Canada to Norway and Sweden, or compare the USA to Britain or France.

While there are real differences in energy use and appliance efficiency, you can't just compare Canada to Norway and Sweden. The winters in populated-Canada are far harsher than the winters in populated-Norway or populated-Sweden, with summers that are substantially hotter.

Comparing the US to Britain or France is if anything even worse; vast and highly-populated swaths of the US manage to combine summers that wouldn't be out of place in north Africa with winters that wouldn't be out of place in Scandinavia.

You could for sure bring US and Canadian energy usage closer to usage in Europe, but there are boring physical reasons why you wouldn't ever expect the difference to get close to disappearing.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:40 AM on March 17, 2011 [6 favorites]

How do they load the rods up into the pool? Do they have some water-filled container that they use? Do they just pull it up into the air?
posted by delmoi at 12:40 AM on March 17, 2011

NHK live feed: I now see white vapor/smoke coming out of the top of reactor 2's housing as well as continuing white vapor out of the remains of reactor 3.
posted by gen at 12:42 AM on March 17, 2011

We'd love to have your discussion about efficiency and conservation on the #fukushima-ot IRC channel.
posted by polyhedron at 12:43 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

WHich is cool but we can also discuss it here.
posted by serazin at 12:44 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

delmoi, I can't speak to the specific procedures used at Fukushima Daiichi, but I did find an illustrative animation which shows the entire process taking place underwater. The uploader, thirdwaved, actually has a great many interesting video animations of procedures at a nuclear power plant.
posted by ob1quixote at 1:13 AM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

"The CEO of Éléctricité de France has offered to send the French robots to the Japanese operator Tepco."
Why so fast? Couldnt he wait a few more days?

What makes you think he's the hold-up?
posted by rodgerd at 1:21 AM on March 17, 2011

Anyone trying to follow this thread on an iOS device... the excellent Mercury browser app has a scrollbar to get down here and a refresh button exposed for when you get here. It's the Swiss Army Knife of iOS browsers.
posted by panaceanot at 2:35 AM on March 17, 2011

Random bits as of sometime last night/early morning Japan time from NHK's English service.
Only two SDF CH-47s were deployed and dropped water from, it appears, 300m, not in hover, but in cruising flight. We know that was stopped. Good idea, given the resources devoted and the spectacular wrongness of the idea in the first place.
It appears only one Global Hawk drone was deployed to get sub-meter resolution. No images I know of to validate/verify that. And it appears that eleven police water cannons are onsite, though it isn't clear how many are being held in reserve.
NHK TV English on the web is just looping stories on a one or two hour cycle, so there's no really new information.
posted by nj_subgenius at 2:47 AM on March 17, 2011

I knew that floam.I didn't really
posted by panaceanot at 2:48 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

This does no service to the disaster response whatsoever, but it may be a kind of relief. I recommend popping out after six minutes, or possibly before if you're not susceptible to laughing.
posted by nj_subgenius at 3:03 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Re: the new power line. It seems to me that this accomplishment, while certainly a great improvement, may not mean very much. Even if all of the pumps power up and work fine, they would still be dependent on the condition of all of the piping necessary to get the water where it needs to go. One look at those buildings tells me that a whole lot of that piping is either damaged or gone.

This appears to be turning into a giant, horrible Catch-22. Must lower the radiation by putting water on all of the rods, but you can't get water to the rods until the radiation is low enough to allow workers to repair the damaged pipes.

Yikes!
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 3:25 AM on March 17, 2011

One look at those buildings tells me that a whole lot of that piping is either damaged or gone.

I can't imagine they are relying on the original piping. They have to be planning to lay new piping to bring in water from a new location.
posted by gen at 3:32 AM on March 17, 2011

gen: "I can't imagine they are relying on the original piping. They have to be planning to lay new piping to bring in water from a new location."

Excellent point. I still can't see how they can accomplish it, though, if the radiation is so bad that you can't put people near even the reactor buildings. Tough nut to crack here.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 3:47 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

You can't really judge the piping based on the pictures of the building. The hydrogen explosions blew the tops off, but if the pipes were at a lower level they may be OK.
posted by delmoi at 3:52 AM on March 17, 2011

A story in today's Daily Yomiuri - 'Terror at N-plant during quake' mentions problems with the pipes instantly following the quake: "But seams on metal pipes installed in the ceiling had been broken by the strong jolts and water started flooding out."
posted by woodblock100 at 3:58 AM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

They're not able to pump water because the radiation levels are too high. (Something I suspected when I saw the numbers the helicopter measured -- 87.7 mSv/hr 300 feet up -- but I didn't want to bring in more pessimism.) In the morning they said they were pretty sure they could have electric power back this afternoon, but it looks like that hasn't happened either.

I really wanted to wake up to good news.
posted by Jeanne at 4:30 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that the ~50 workers who volunteered to stay behind still think they have a chance of getting this under control. I consider them to be more qualified to make this assessment than anyone else pontificating on the matter. They are betting their life on it in a very real way and have access to a lot more information than we do.

I imagine they would abandon their efforts and evacuate if it were obviously a lost cause. Unless someone has evidence that TEPCO is forcing these people to sacrifice themselves for a clearly hopeless situation, I am going to retain hope that very qualified people believe they can restore order, or at least have a fighting chance.

It's pretty clear the situation is ridiculously bad. Containment is breached, reactors are very hot, things have gone boom here and there. But a massive dispersal of radioactive material has not yet occurred and no fuel has gone into sustained criticality. As far as I know, the heat they are fighting is caused by the decay of byproducts which should reduce a lot over the next few days provided the desperate attempts to provide cooling are successful. I am going to hope they pull this off, if no one minds. Some of the reactions to this event are frankly making me uncomfortable. It's almost like some people really want this to get worse.
posted by cj_ at 4:30 AM on March 17, 2011 [7 favorites]

Jesus, from woodblock's link:

Workers are supposed to first report, without touching, water leaks they find inside the building. But continuing aftershocks made them more terrified of being trapped inside the building with the reactor than of the possibly radioactive water, he said.

When they reached the first floor, it was crowded with other employees changing out of their work uniforms and being tested for radioactive exposure before they left the building, as called for by regulations. But with only one testing device available, there was a long line of workers waiting in the narrow passage. The aftershocks kept on coming and some people shouted angrily, "Hurry up!"
posted by mediareport at 4:31 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

Apparently (according to the Guardian reporting on some tweets), a water cannon truck has started spraying water on reactor 3. How successful that will be is anyone's guess, but probably more accurate than the helicopter drops at least.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 4:35 AM on March 17, 2011

The English-language newspapers here in Japan might be another source you may want to keep track of:
The Japan Times
The Daily Yomiuri
Mainichi Daily News
posted by woodblock100 at 4:37 AM on March 17, 2011 [6 favorites]

Ok, it was the police riot squad water cannon that had to pull out because of radiation levels, and now they're sending in five SDF fire trucks. According to NHK, the five trucks combined hold 30 tons of water, and are set up so that you can spray water from inside the vehicle (this is meant to protect people from explosions/debris more than radiation).
posted by Jeanne at 4:49 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

It sounds like the initial quake, not the subsequent explosions did a lot more damage then was initially reported.
posted by delmoi at 4:53 AM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

I'll risk pissing off the "no policy discussions" crowd to point out yesterday's roundup at The Oil Drum has some interesting links about nuclear policy implications of the crisis from a range of perspectives, mixed with news links that are mostly redundant here. This bit from The Economist is interesting:

On the third hand, and this is a rather decisive issue, the insurance industry has rendered its judgment on the safety of nuclear power, and it is decisively negative. No private insurer will guarantee the potential liabilities of building and operating nuclear-power plants, leaving the industry dependent on government guarantees, effectively massive government subsidies, for its existence.

There are also links to relatively thoughtful nuke-skeptical pieces like the Post-Carbon Institute's "Ten reasons why new nuclear was a mistake – even before Fukushima" and a link-filled post from Climate Progress:

Nuclear fails the key tests not because Japan shows nuclear power is inherently unsafe. Nuclear fails the test because it is wildly expensive....Nuclear power wasn’t going anywhere in this country before the earthquake and tsunami (see Exelon’s Rowe: Low gas prices and no carbon price push back nuclear renaissance a “decade, maybe two”). It is just far too expensive...
posted by mediareport at 5:04 AM on March 17, 2011 [6 favorites]

I beg to differ. Masturbatory steampunk fantasies are exactly what we need at times like these.

Lady Lovelace entered the room and cleared her throat. Byron looked up awkwardly pulling his head away from Madam Currie's bodice. "madam, this is hardly the time for such dalliances, I've just run the latest numbers from the Empire of Japan on there Engine at the academe, those fools have been far too careless with their yellowcake powered steam engines. Now the whole world is in danger"
"c'est impossible, I designed the system myself." The madam retorted, with an icy glare.
"That look will not cool the plant. We must go."
(Byron convinces them to stay for a port for fortune, and joins them on the train, seducing the cold hearted lovelace along the way, while in the background the telegrams provide news of the deteriorating situation and Currie obsessed over what went wrong with her design. As they arrive in Fukashima all hope seems lost. Then a spark of genius Currie realizes the flaw. A lever must be opened in a very radioactive part of the engine. One lone individual must sacrifice themselves to save the world. Byron composes a final sonnet, confessing his love for both women. This is followed by a quick threesome which I leave to your imagination. Then Byron walks into the slowly to the irradiated chamber and pulls the lever. The world is saved. He emerges dying, with his last words he says, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few. I shall always love you..."

Later something terrible stirs in his lead lined coffin as it travels back to London...

See don't you feel better now.
posted by humanfont at 5:20 AM on March 17, 2011 [21 favorites]

It is difficult after days of monitoring this thread, when someone brings up nuclear power plants and the Japan crisis, not to say "I know more about this than you could possibly imagine."

Thanks.
posted by readery at 5:20 AM on March 17, 2011 [9 favorites]

Couldn't that be a whole new FPP, mediareport? In the MeTa thread yesterday, the mods were supportive of someone starting a new post if they wanted to. They just don't want the nuke policy discussion in MeTa.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:21 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Well I for one enjoyed the "steampunk" remarks. Having spent a little bit of time in my youth riding around on steam engines at the annual fair, I can tell you they are not really all that plausible a means of keeping global industrial civilization running happily.

If everyone were to actually stay on topic here and post only when there is new info or insight, there'd be one comment an hour here instead of one a minute. That'd be nice, but what the hell, I can't resist either.

Number 4 spent fuel pool, and possibly 3 as well, must be leaking: If it weren't low on water they'd not be calling in the helicopters, and if it had boiled off this quickly that'd mean the previous temperature readings were all wrong and I expect there would have been a whole lot more steam than we've seen in the pictures.

On the "policy discussion" I'm staying out of it except for this. I'll probably still end up a supporter of nuclear power after it's all over. A hint for the other side: When during an interview, the reporter asks you if you believe the industry's claims that reactor design has gotten more safe since 1970, the correct answer is "yes". It's a good question though, sure to identify at least some of those who are motivated only by irrational fear and conditioned answer in the negative to anything that starts with "do you believe the industry", as I observed happen this morning.
posted by sfenders at 5:26 AM on March 17, 2011

> I'll risk pissing off the "no policy discussions" crowd

Both Jessaymn and coretex have stated this is the right place to have this discussion.
posted by cj_ at 5:27 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

I know, cj_, that's why I took the risk.
posted by mediareport at 5:28 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

cortex
posted by cj_ at 5:28 AM on March 17, 2011

Jessamyn
posted by cj_ at 5:32 AM on March 17, 2011

To clarify: I'm fine with policy discussions here; my only reason for suggesting a possible new thread is that we're pushing 3000 comments, though the Show New Comments dealie makes that sort of a non-issue.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:40 AM on March 17, 2011

Can someone provide external confirmation for this?:

12.14pm: A Tepco official has told a press conference in Japan that radiation levels at the site soon after 9.30 am were at 3,750 millisieverts per hour, Ian Sample has just told me. "These are absolutely dangerous levels," Ian said.

posted by yeoz at 5:58 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

And, while we're here, can anyone provide external confirmation for this tweet?:

Power cable to the #Fukushima Daiichi No.1 Nuclear power plant is connected.

posted by yeoz at 6:02 AM on March 17, 2011

Another possible reason for taking lengthy policy discussions to a new purpose-made thread or elsewhere (has Metachat got an ongoing thread for this?) is that due to it having been so far a really excellent info-gathering place compared to the rest of the net the last week, quite possible there's a lot of people reading it who are using its info to make decisions about their safety and whether to leave their current locations.

Might make it a bit easier for them to do so.

(Though of course, i know we're not under any obligation to move a discussion for that - please don't misunderstand me. That's just the way i've been personally reading this thread, as i've a [quietly scared] friend in Tokyo - i've been trying to pass her useful links I find here.)
posted by pseudonymph at 6:04 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

yeoz: TEPCO released another set of radiation measurements. I'm a little suspicious that they keep reporting about different monitoring points... but anyway: yeah, at the "main office" （事務本館）　they've been measuring ~3700 µSv/hr (9:30 to 10:50 a.m.) (thanks ob1quixote!), and a little later 646 µSv/hr at the main gate (11:10 a.m.)

From what I can gather from zooming in on the plant on Google maps, I think the main gate is by the parking lot about 800 m from the reactors, so I would expect the main office to be closer and significantly hotter.
posted by Jeanne at 6:09 AM on March 17, 2011

There's a mix of reports on the cable being connected, most say it's going to be connected today and a few saying that stock prices rose on reports of it having been connected. No headlines saying connected, which is what I'd expect.
posted by warbaby at 6:10 AM on March 17, 2011

NHK reported just now that they expected the electric cable to be connected tomorrow. (10:11 p.m. in Japan now, so not much time left to connect it today).
posted by Jeanne at 6:11 AM on March 17, 2011

It's always tomorrow in Japan.
posted by warbaby at 6:12 AM on March 17, 2011 [6 favorites]

Yikes. Above 2 sieverts is lethal for 5-50% (great range, wikipedia). I'm guessing they're cycling people, and these are doses per hour, but if that's accurate, things are getting pretty bad. This level can cause some pretty nasty immediate radiation sickness symptoms, like nausea.

I really hope and am assuming (easy to do on the other side of the world) they just mixed up milli and micro again. But, shit. The fact this keeps happening over and over again really shows that we might need to focus on renaming the SI prefixes to prevent the media (I assume scientists are better at this) from accidentally misinforming people like this. It's literally a difference of 1000x.

On preview, the much lower figure seems to be the case.
posted by mccarty.tim at 6:13 AM on March 17, 2011

I assume this is good news, but, grain of salt and all that:

12.37pm: Speaking of which, Kyodo is also reporting that Tokyo Electric Power Company has said the water shots we saw being administered earlier have been effective "in cooling fuel pool as steam rose", so perhaps the process is more efficient than it looked.

posted by yeoz at 6:14 AM on March 17, 2011

Reuters - TOKYO, March 17 | Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:40am EDT

TOKYO, March 17 (Reuters) - The operator of Japan's troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant said it had started work on Thursday to connect outside power cables to the plant and that electricity could be connected on Thursday.

Tokyo Electric Power Co had hoped to connect the cables by Thursday afternoon to two of the plant's six reactor units to restart cooling pumps knocked out by last Friday's massive earthquake and tsunami.

Japan's nuclear agency said the No.2 reactor will be the first to receive electricity because it has a roof and will try to use power for internal mechanisms.
posted by warbaby at 6:20 AM on March 17, 2011

Ug. This is depressing as hell. For all the knowledgable people keeping up with this, thanks.
posted by vrakatar at 6:31 AM on March 17, 2011

yeoz: your source is confusing milli and microsieverts. Latest from Kyodo:

Water shots effective in cooling fuel pool as steam rose: TEPCO
But the radiation level remained more or less unchanged at around 3,600 microsievert per hour after the trucks completed their work, just as there had been no appreciable change in the level after seawater was dropped from the air in the morning, it said.
posted by gen at 6:33 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

I want someone who knows to help with analysis and feedback, or if anyone knows what/who this Austrian org is. (weather? school?)

It's the Austrian central meteorological and geophysical service. About as reputable as you can get. It sounds like they're the ones who worked with UN agencies (mentioned in the New York Times article linked previously) on their projections about the radiation plume.
posted by klausness at 6:36 AM on March 17, 2011

yeoz: your source is confusing milli and microsieverts.
Yes, thanks. Jeanne pointed this out earlier too, with the pdf from TEPCO with radiation measurements.
posted by yeoz at 6:37 AM on March 17, 2011

Still with the confusion between milli- and micro- ? Oy. This is what drove me to not take these press conferences at their word.
posted by ZeusHumms at 6:39 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

I vote for keeping this thread to news and having another, separate policy thread.
posted by Skorgu at 6:41 AM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

I'd prefer to keep the news and policy threads separate as well, if only for readability's sake.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:45 AM on March 17, 2011 [5 favorites]

ctmf is on the ground, in Atsugi: http://twitter.com/ctmf/status/48378264946880512
posted by BeerFilter at 6:45 AM on March 17, 2011 [16 favorites]

Fukushima Plant Worker Blogs About The Situation.
posted by ericb at 6:56 AM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

Japan's Nuclear Power Industry Has History Of Scandals.
posted by ericb at 7:01 AM on March 17, 2011

Does anybody have video or an English transcript on the NISA press conference they showed at the end of the NHK 7 o'clock news for 17-Mar-2011? I'd really like better translation about what the NISA man was saying about (paraphrasing) nuclear fission releasing lots of particles which leads to direct exposure to radiation, including electro-magnetic radiation. The English language NISA website is useless.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:04 AM on March 17, 2011

Ok, so I'm here and have the lowdown. Nobody's said not to write anything but... I'm not going to put any numbers or forecasts, for fear of poorly wording something and causing a runaway internet panic. I'm deciding that for myself. Let's just say I'm not pleased by the data.

The Japanese people are pulling together fantastically. From what I've seen (in one partial day) morale is surprisingly good down South here. People seem to feel betrayed by TEPCO, but feel that the government is doing the best they can and are extremely grateful for the assistance the US and other countries are providing.

Looks like we're going to be busy mofos for a while here. I'm beat. I'm going to bed, and then reporting for (whatever) early tomorrow morning.
posted by ctmf at 7:11 AM on March 17, 2011 [50 favorites]

Let's just say I'm not pleased by the data.

Thank you for sharing even that.
posted by gen at 7:12 AM on March 17, 2011

Fukushima Plant Worker Blogs About The Situation.

Thank you Michiko Otsuki!

Thanks ericb. I think the excerpt from that story needs to be pasted here, that's awesome.

'Although her blog has now been taken down, her posts were first translated to English.

Regarding Tepco, she writes, "The staff of Tepco have refused to flee, and continue to work even at the peril of their own lives. Please stop attacking us." She continues:'

'I am writing my name down, knowing I will be abused and hurt because of this. There are people working to protect all of you, even in exchange for their own lives.

'Watching my co-workers putting their lives on the line without a second thought in this situation, I'm proud to be a member of Tepco, and a member of the team behind Fukushima No. 2 reactor.

'She describes the work that she and fellow employees performed at the plant following the earthquake:'

'In the midst of the tsunami alarm (last Friday), at 3am in the night when we couldn't even see where we going, we carried on working to restore the reactors from where we were, right by the sea, with the realisation that this could be certain death,' she said.

'The machine that cools the reactor is just by the ocean, and it was wrecked by the tsunami. Everyone worked desperately to try and restore it. Fighting fatigue and empty stomachs, we dragged ourselves back to work.

'There are many who haven't gotten in touch with their family members, but are facing the present situation and working hard.'

'Otsuki adds, "I hope to return to the plant and work on the restoration of the reactor."'

Straits Times is the source, with the awesome headline, 'We're not running away': Fukushima worker.
posted by cashman at 7:13 AM on March 17, 2011 [5 favorites]

Good luck out there ctmf. Be safe.
posted by yeoz at 7:14 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Also: did you know the INES levels have guidelines with numbers for what each level represents? pdf
posted by ctmf at 7:14 AM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

13:22 Kazuko Yamashita was five when the atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. She now lives in Tokyo and she's sanguine about the risk from the Fukushima nuclear reactors.
I may be a bit too callous about this due to the fact that I was really heavily exposed to radiation, but I don't think this is anything to turn pale over.
People seem to be much too sensitive, though of course it's not really for me to say, and heavy radiation exposure is a serious thing. But I was 3.6km (2.2 miles) from the bomb, and they've evacuated for 20km. I really don't understand this kind of feeling.

posted by sokkupapetto at 7:19 AM on March 17, 2011

IRC is made for masturbatory conversation. #fukushima-ot on irc.slashnet.org:6667. Clients exist for everything from your coffeepot to your smartphone, no excuses.

I have an 8-cup Bodum french press. Could you point me to the appropriate IRC client? Thanks.
posted by klausness at 7:23 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

'The machine that cools the reactor is just by the ocean, and it was wrecked by the tsunami.

Reading that reminded me of some piece of practical physics I absorbed living in the Ozarks, about how there's a limit to how high you can suck up water, which is why you have to have a pump down below pushing water. Googling around it appears that even if you could get a perfect vacuum, the limit for suction pumping would be about 34 feet.
posted by nomisxid at 7:27 AM on March 17, 2011

You need to route through an IRC/HTCPCP gateway, klausness. See IETF RFC 2324 for more info.
posted by ardgedee at 7:28 AM on March 17, 2011 [6 favorites]

I see no reason we can't have reasoned policy discussions and news updates.

A hint for the other side: When during an interview, the reporter asks you if you believe the industry's claims that reactor design has gotten more safe since 1970, the correct answer is "yes".

Just because there are additional safety systems in place designed to counter known problems does not mean that the overall design is measurably safer given the complexity and emergent states within. The addition of safety measures may in fact create an illusion of safety, which leads to further catastrophes. Early to day on NPR a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists was talking about some of the issues with passive safety systems which rely on gravity and how they may not actually provide enough water flow in the event of extreme conditions, and without pumps they might be less safe.

When Challenger blew up, NASA claimed to have made all these improvements to mission safety. Risk assessments, safety systems and procedures, etc. We were told about the foam hitting Columbia, but it wasn't a problem, a risk assessment said so, no need to worry. Then Columbia crashed on re-entry. The risk assessment was wrong, minority views were discounted and ignored. When the incident was investigated it turned out that a lot of risks had simply been ignored and that the actual chances of another crash was much higher than previously calculated. Today it is my understanding that NASA is doing what it can to control risks and limit the number of remaining missions with the goal of shutting the program before another failure happens.
posted by humanfont at 7:28 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Maybe it was the steam punk comment that set the wrong tone or something, but some of you people have really badly misinterpreted my comment above.

First, it's not "ironic" or "rich" that I'm dependent on tech and energy tech, too, as a programmer. My whole point was that we are all dependent on it now, and how strange it is to think that it took such a short time to get to the point where we obviously are. It seems to me that no one has objected to either of those factual claims, only to what they assumed the unstated implications were meant to be. That's called being defensive, and it usually reveals that someone has a strong preexisting commitment to a particular position. So that, too, only further proves the point. We are dependent on energy technology, to the degree that it would probably be an acceptable risk to many people to depend exclusively on energy technologies that might accidentally kill us or make our planet unlivable just to maintain our access to cheap energy. Whether you approve or not, that's the situation. And I don't see anyone disagreeing with that here.

I don't want to see us go back to pre-industrial living conditions. I want to see us being super clever and almost ninja-like in the way we use energy consuming technology, so that we can maximize the practical benefits (and certainly sustain all the necessary core benefits that contribute to human survival) without just wasting energy (and for that matter other resources) all over the place on frivolities. I just think we should aspire to use energy in a much more mature and responsible way. Currently, our economic system in the US is practically designed to encourage the creation of new energy-consuming goods and services that aren't strictly necessary for survival, nor even for the sustenance of a meaningful, satisfactory cultural environment. We deliberately waste energy to increase "economic growth" in the US, in order to inflate GDP numbers--metrics that don't reflect how wastefully or efficiently we use energy, or really anything relevant to the actual quality or sustainability of human life.

I'm not advocating a return to the dark ages in the slightest; nor any kind of return to the past. I'm advocating a more mature future with humans firmly in control of the tools we use, rather than asymmetrically dependent on them as we increasingly are now. I'll admit, it isn't easy to see how we could ever achieve this when, as has been noted elsewhere, at this particular point in human history, we seem to be acutely incapable of forming a broad enough consensus on any issue to work together for a common purpose. I suspect that will ultimately be what does us in, if we don't get there soon. But then, we can always just keep changing the benchmarks we use to evaluate the severity of our problems until they seem to disappear--at least, until we finally disappear, too. That seems to be the long-term course we're on now.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:32 AM on March 17, 2011 [7 favorites]

As the scare hype amps up here in the US this a.m., I unashamedly admit that I use the incredible insights, facts and perspectives offered here as a balm for some seriously freaking out friends and relatives who let themselved be spoon-fed by our media and think life as we know it is going to soon end. Wish I was exaggerating

Could someone share again what it is CTMF is doing over theref? I missed it somewhere along the line and have a feeling I shouldn't have. Thanks again for everything here Mefites and CTMF whatever it IS you're doing - bless you for it. Take good care and stay safe.
posted by cdalight at 7:33 AM on March 17, 2011

"I have an 8-cup Bodum french press. Could you point me to the appropriate IRC client?"

Here ya go.
posted by markkraft at 7:33 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Then Columbia crashed on re-entry. The risk assessment was wrong, minority views were discounted and ignored.

Actually the people who were worried were not that worried. It was more of a "hypothetically, theoretically something bad could happen. And if something bad did happen, there is nothing we could do about it anyway"
posted by delmoi at 7:34 AM on March 17, 2011

Slashnet has a web client just click this link and pick a username.
posted by delmoi at 7:35 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

Dozens of nuke plant workers injured, exposed -- "Expert says workers at stricken nuclear plant are 'like suicide fighters in a war,' but some are reportedly volunteering to join them."
posted by ericb at 7:49 AM on March 17, 2011

AFP reported a Twitter message by a woman who said her father, just six months from retirement, had decided to offer his help.

"I fought back tears when I heard father, who is to retire in half a year, volunteered to go," the message read.

"He said 'The future of nuclear power generation depends on how we'll cope with this. I'll go with a sense of mission'... I've never been more proud of him," she added.

A core team of 180 emergency workers has been at the forefront of the struggle at the plant, rotating in and out of the complex to try to reduce their radiation exposure."*

posted by ericb at 7:52 AM on March 17, 2011 [5 favorites]

Why Fukushima isn't a rerun of Chornobyl
posted by mazola at 7:53 AM on March 17, 2011

If thats true zachlipton, that just feeds into my feeling that the have lost control, with nukes you need to have control and a lot of hard fast rules, communication is the key.

I predict that the post-mortem investigation will show that the plant workers were passing decisions up through the chain of command rather than quickly and effectively working through the steps of their Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP) "playbook."
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:55 AM on March 17, 2011

I predict the sky is blue and gravity pulls me downward. That's me agreeing with you, zenmasterthis. It's appalling all the same.
posted by RolandOfEld at 7:58 AM on March 17, 2011

From Mazola's link,

Fox News talk-show host Glenn Beck reiterated their remarks that the death toll from Chornobyl is between 40 and 75 people.

This is criminally stupid.
posted by maniabug at 7:59 AM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

New air footage of reactor 3 and 4. Shaky-cam is shaky.
posted by Jeanne at 8:01 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Shaky-cam doesn't do diddly squat except for trying and re-trying to play the vid. Symbolic: rinse, repeat, and no information.
posted by Namlit at 8:16 AM on March 17, 2011

didn't load for me either.
posted by delmoi at 8:17 AM on March 17, 2011

it worked for me and made me fear for the camera-persons' lives if they were as close as it seemed, and exposed to the open air. Reactor 2 looks 'normal', 3 looks devastated, orange/grey smoke coming out of the corner of 4 I think?
posted by nomisxid at 8:20 AM on March 17, 2011

If you had the ear of a high-ranking official of a U.S. nuclear power plant what would you ask him?

I'd ask the same question I ask any politician: "Our national infrastructure is old and starting to fail. When are you going to shut up with the politicking and start working on rebuilding and replacing our roads/bridges/rail lines/power plants/communication grid/power grid?"
posted by dw at 8:22 AM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

You can also see the video at the Al Jazeera Live Blog.
posted by futz at 8:23 AM on March 17, 2011

I saw a headline this morning talking about how Japan was going to start trying to pour water on the reactors. Wow, even though we've talked about how behind the news is, it is still mind boggling. It's not like we are just speculating or hearing things from friends - there are links, sources, images.

This is why it is absolutely paramount that we stay abreast of any laws or trends that could hinder the internet.
posted by cashman at 8:26 AM on March 17, 2011 [11 favorites]

Re that Edmonton Journal article: it's credited to David Marples, Freelance, who turns out to be a prof in the History and Classics department at the University of Alberta. His field is the Ukraine, and he's written three books on Chernobyl, but in this article, he's focusing on a subset of the issues. Yes, Japan has been more transparent and responsive than the Soviets, but we're still trying to find out what kinds of damage we're dealing with, how long it's been happening, and what the full range of worst case scenarios are. "Not a rerun of Chernobyl" is a pretty low bar to jump and doesn't mean "Not as bad as Chernobyl", because this is still bloody well happening. Strange for a historian to try to say something definitive while the pixels are still wet.
posted by maudlin at 8:27 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

Fox News talk-show host Glenn Beck reiterated their remarks that the death toll from Chornobyl is between 40 and 75 people.

This is criminally stupid.

Glenn Beck is criminally stupid.

Anyhow, I don't think any reasonable person (not Glenn Beck! that asshole is not reasonable!) would know that the "official" death toll counts only plant workers and some of the firemen that were at Chernobyl in the first 24 hours or so. Liquidator and civilian deaths were never included in the official statistics. I mean seriously, the Soviet Government reported that 40-75.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 8:29 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you hit the play button the second time...

3 looks really bad. 4 has some odd colored smoke. All four seem to be venting steam.

If there's any good news, there's no Cherenkov radiation visible. Of course, if there were I'd think there would be no one within 100km of the plant right now.
posted by dw at 8:30 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

New http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ikus_TEaGI from a different angle of the tsunami hitting Miyako City. Very sad.
posted by futz at 8:31 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Has there been any recent disclosure about a) which isotopes have been released into the environment to date and b) which isotopes are likely to be created and released in the various meltdown scenarios, some of which seem virtually inevitable by now?

There are enormous differences in the harms over time depending on the actual materials released.
posted by norm at 8:31 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Whereas the Japanese have alarmed some western observers by permitting the reactors to overheat, risking a meltdown, rather than risk the lives of workers, the U.S.S.R. used volunteers in the zone for 30 days, and then switched to the deployment of some 600,000 army reservists, some of whom stayed in the contaminated areas for up to six months. Once the army was on the scene, all health information was classified and heavily restricted. Although thousands later died with familiar symptoms of radiation sickness, their deaths were attributed to other causes.

He's not all sunshine and roses
posted by nomisxid at 8:32 AM on March 17, 2011

New http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ikus_TEaGI from a different angle of the tsunami hitting Miyako City. Very sad.

Seems a little tacky that there is wacky commercial before the video plays. Especially since it's a commercial for an insurance company.
posted by Think_Long at 8:33 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

As a kid, we always used to drive past this faded billboard for a funeral home. I was only 7-9ish, but always thought it was incredibly tacky that they had a big tornado on their billboard, given they weren't uncommon in Oklahoma. It was only after the repainted the board a few years later that I discovered it was supposed to be a big feathered quill pen.
posted by nomisxid at 8:37 AM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

Strange for a historian to try to say something definitive while the pixels are still wet.

I didn't read in any predictions in the article. I took it as an interesting run-down of similarities and differences from a historical perspective that I found helpful when all kinds of facts and assertions are being thrown around fast-and-loose in the media and on the web.
posted by mazola at 8:38 AM on March 17, 2011

New http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ikus_TEaGI from a different angle of the tsunami hitting Miyako City. Very sad.

Holy shit. That really shows how much the water level rises, i.e. it's not just "a wave", but the entire water level in the bay just rises like 5m within 2 minutes. And near the start he zooms in on a person on the roof of another building. Then he pans back a minute later and the building just isn't there any more.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:41 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

It really makes you just want to hug somebody.
posted by Think_Long at 8:42 AM on March 17, 2011

norm,

i'm not sure if this is as detailed as you wanted but the 4th graphic talks about radiation exposure and which isotopes might affect what.

The first 2 pages of the graphic also estimate how many tons of spent fuel are on-site, perhaps matching what was estimated earlier in the thread.
posted by jindc at 8:45 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

I saw a headline this morning talking about how Japan was going to start trying to pour water on the reactors.

Expert: Cooling efforts 'like squirt guns against a forest fire'.
posted by ericb at 8:45 AM on March 17, 2011

National Journal: A Simplified Explanation Of The Nuclear Situation.
posted by ericb at 8:48 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

No idea how reliable this source is, but TEPCO are now claiming:

Water spray is working
Permanent power from the grid in a few hours
Backup diesel generators for units 5-6 should be restored almost immediately

_{(Of course, if the grid connection is going to help them, I wonder why a mobile generating plant couldn't have been connected at those same points. As I alluded to earlier in the post, mobile generation is difficult to deploy in a short timespan, but is not rocket science. If you had the military and a fleet of helicopters at your disposal, I'd be surprised if you couldn't do it in a few hours)}

If true, this is the first good news we've had in a while.
posted by schmod at 8:51 AM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

mazola, I'm just not sure how much value there is to a current news story saying that "details don't match up with Chernobyl" when it can be conflated to "not as bad as Chernobyl". I think many of us (including me) were trying to compare this event with 1986 when it all started, but that seems to be more and more of a side issue right now. Fukushima isn't Chernobyl, but it also isn't TMI, Hiroshima or Sellafield. I think there's real value in making historical comparisons later, when we know much more, and which I suspect Marple will do. I'm curious enough that I want to find his earlier books on Chernobyl right now.

I don't know what the article looked like when he submitted it -- it may have been much more comprehensive and nuanced -- but the editing and the headline aren't doing it any favours. For example:

In the first place, Japan's plants are better constructed with significantly more attention to safety and levels of accident defence. Although Fukushima is ranked by the International Atomic Energy Agency as an accident at level 6 (Chornobyl was 7), its consequences have been greatly reduced by the containment levels over the reactor.

The consequences so far have been less. We don't know yet what the final consequences will be, especially if the pools, with no containment, can't be brought under control.
posted by maudlin at 8:51 AM on March 17, 2011

Info for our American MeFites in Japan:

[11:35 a.m. ET Thursday, 12:35 a.m. Friday in Tokyo] The Pentagon says it is offering voluntary evacuation flights to all U.S. military family members on Japan's main island of Honshu. Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said the potential number of evacuees could be in the thousands. Military family members will be flown to the United States on commercial aircraft, commercial charters or military aircraft as necessary, Lapan said.

[11:24 a.m. ET Thursday, 12:24 a.m. Friday in Tokyo] The U.S. Embassy is making 600 seats available on buses to evacuate Americans from quake-stricken Sendai, Japan, to Tokyo. Buses will depart Sendai City Hall at 9 a.m. Friday and again at 9 a.m. Saturday if seats remain, the embassy said in a statement on its website.

[11:14 a.m. ET Thursday, 12:14 a.m. Friday in Tokyo] Stars and Stripes reports that the U.S. military on Thursday began voluntary evacuations for families and dependents on four bases in Japan: Atsugi Naval Air Facility, Yokosuka Naval Base and the Army's Camp Zama, all near Tokyo, the Misawa Air Base in northern Japan. Non-essential workers will also be allowed to leave.

posted by ericb at 8:54 AM on March 17, 2011

Never thought I'd say this, but Rachel Maddow has a good, basic explanation of the fuel rod problem in Fukushima, followed with a good interview with a nuclear physicist who clearly explains the problems of trying to cool off the spent fuel rod storage.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:57 AM on March 17, 2011 [8 favorites]

Never thought I'd say this, but Rachel Maddow has a good, basic explanation of the fuel rod problem in Fukushima ...

She had another informative segment the other evening (as mentioned above): 'What is a meltdown?' [video | 13:43].
posted by ericb at 9:04 AM on March 17, 2011

YT-hosted overhead helicopter footage, possibly same as that linked here.

Anyone care to take a crack at the commentary? They freeze frame a couple of times.

Looks like it must have been a scouting flight prior to the water drops. And yeah, upthread someone noted that is close enough to cause unease.
posted by mwhybark at 9:06 AM on March 17, 2011

Just want to say that I hope the policy discussion happens elsewhere, and think someone should start another thread. Those of us using this thread as a primary news source don't need hundreds more non-news related posts to read through. It's difficult enough to catch up each evening with the 300-400 new posts as it is now.
posted by threeturtles at 9:06 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

> Futz: New http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ikus_TEaGI from a different angle of the tsunami hitting Miyako City. Very sad.
It's shocking how quickly this devastation happens. It's a <5 minute video, and at the end things are already starting to flow back out to the sea.
posted by SLC Mom at 9:07 AM on March 17, 2011

It's shocking how quickly this devastation happens.

Notice the building to the left with the person on the roof - the camera pans away, and then next time it pans back the building is gone. I hope that person somehow floated their way to safety.
posted by davey_darling at 9:11 AM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

Anyone care to take a crack at the commentary?

Every time the footage freezes they make remarks about whichever reactor building is in frame, as well as comments like - "there's smoke coming out of the hole" etc. You don't really need to know Japanese.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:14 AM on March 17, 2011

Notice the building to the left with the person on the roof - the camera pans away, and then next time it pans back the building is gone.

I watched and had not noticed that. That fucking sucks. .
posted by cashman at 9:18 AM on March 17, 2011

If there's any good news, there's no Cherenkov radiation visible. Of course, if there were I'd think there would be no one within 100km of the plant right now.

If they're having trouble keeping the cores under water you're going to have a hell of a lot of trouble seeing any Cherenkov radiation even if there was a massive breach of the core and containment units.
posted by Talez at 9:19 AM on March 17, 2011

Notice the building to the left with the person on the roof - the camera pans away, and then next time it pans back the building is gone.

There was a comment in the other thread about how helicopter video coverage of the tsunami seemed to pan away whenever the wave was about to engulf a moving vehicle.

Are these pans being done digitally before rebroadcast or by the camera operator? Is avoiding showing death as it occurs a written or unwritten rule of Japanese TV coverage?
posted by zippy at 9:27 AM on March 17, 2011

Is avoiding showing death as it occurs a written or unwritten rule of Japanese TV coverage?

It's probably an unwritten rule of "things I do not want to see" for people with video cameras.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 9:30 AM on March 17, 2011 [6 favorites]

Could just be human decency.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:30 AM on March 17, 2011 [6 favorites]

SciAm:

Fukushima Will Be a Wasteland
Scientific American's David Biello judges Fukushima to have reached Chernobyl proportions. Steve Mirsky reports

posted by saulgoodman at 9:40 AM on March 17, 2011

Of course, if the grid connection is going to help them, I wonder why a mobile generating plant couldn't have been connected at those same points

I don't know what size generators they were able to get on-site, but on a forum for electricians, one user says the regular reactor backup generators are 3 - 15 megawatts.

Assuming they were able to bring portable generators of this capacity on site, I imagine keeping them fuelled is an issue. But it's possible that they were not able to secure sufficient generator capacity for the site, too.

Having power on site at the least means one less thing to worry about. At most it means they will have sufficient power to operate pumps and systems that they previously were unable to use.
posted by zippy at 9:41 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

Could just be human decency.

Shit, I don't know if I could even look at that happening, never mind point a video camera at it.

The people on that balcony would have easily been able to see that person get swept to their death. Not something that will soon be forgotten.
posted by davey_darling at 9:43 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

No doubt it's human decency. It's just hard to anticipate with live coverage, which is why I was wondering if there was some intermediate editing happening.
posted by zippy at 9:44 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

nj_subgenius: "It appears only one Global Hawk drone was deployed to get sub-meter resolution."

Is this the source of the flyby video? That would make sense, given the apparent close range of the photography. But isn't there a window in the shot? Hm, now I'm thinking it isn't the UAV footage.
posted by mwhybark at 9:45 AM on March 17, 2011

I can't remember which site it was now (Al Jazeera?) but they said the flyby video was taken from a military helicopter, possibly before the water-drop runs.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 9:47 AM on March 17, 2011

The flyby footage looks clearly hand-held to me; the cameras on UAVs are like Uber Mega Stabilized.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:48 AM on March 17, 2011

Jesus.

This makes me so angry. Humans will make mistakes, it's inevitable, but our poor priorities make me enraged right now. Why Japan chose nuclear power in the first place is a testament to the dominance of human hubris even over what I thought was our most powerful emotion - fear. But beyond that I keep thinking how many of our own (US) resources are tied up in insane wars right now. We have the power to mobilize the developed world's resources toward containing this, but what do we do with our wealth?
posted by serazin at 9:53 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

TEPCO has released new measurements of the radiation levels.

These go up to just before the JSDF fire engines started spraying water at 7:35. There's a very slight trend downward (note: TEPCO's newest PDFs have the most recent data at the top instead of the bottom) but it looks like the helicopters did little, and levels are still quite high.

Asahi reports that electricity will not be restored before the 19th.
posted by Jeanne at 9:57 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

In case anyone besides me is concerned about the specific isotopes released (since the reports are all about the level of detectable radiation, not the stuff emitting the radiation), I did find some cited reports in the Wikipedia article that have speculated that most of the radiation vented so far was in short-lived isotopes of noble gases and nitrogen, and that cesium and iodine isotopes were measured in Tokyo on March 15.

NPR published this handy guide yesterday for the dangers and half-lives of potential isotopes released. Iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days. So although its effects are bad, it will deteriorate relatively quickly. Cesium-137 has a half life of 30 years. That's worse. These two isotopes, by the way, were ones released in quantity by Chernobyl as well.
posted by norm at 10:00 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

That Edmonton Journal piece on Fukushima vs Chernobyl was good. Whatever post-analysis of poor choices before or during this crisis, I think TEPCO and the Japanese government have done three things which have greatly mitigated this event:

1) They got the news out. Even amid the crisis and confusion caused by an incredibly powerful earthquake and a tsunami that killed thousands and obliterated entire towns, they informed the population. In contract, the Soviet Union kept Chernobyl a secret for nearly two days.

2) They issued an evacuation order early.

3) They called for outside assistance.

In doing these things, they have made it possible for people to take reasonable safety precautions. Within hours after the giant tsunami.

I have a great deal of respect for this.
posted by zippy at 10:00 AM on March 17, 2011 [11 favorites]

So not before Friday March 18 in North America? Not good.
posted by maudlin at 10:01 AM on March 17, 2011

(That is, no electricity before that March 18 as experienced by the New World. Thread's moving fast again!)
posted by maudlin at 10:02 AM on March 17, 2011

Japan's response has been swifter, more candid than the Soviets'

Christ, talk about damning with faint praise. "Pol Pot less of a genocidal fucker than Hitler, historians say."
posted by norm at 10:05 AM on March 17, 2011 [5 favorites]

Pol Pot and Hitler, really?
posted by zippy at 10:06 AM on March 17, 2011 [9 favorites]

It was a comment on the comparison of the candidness and swiftness of anything to the Soviets after Chernobyl, not to compare Japan to Pol Pot. Just in case anyone else missed that.
posted by norm at 10:10 AM on March 17, 2011

norm, be sure to compare biological half-life with physical half-life. Some isotopes are shed easily by the body, others are uptaken either on purpose (iodine) or by accident (strontium, which your body thinks is calcium) and get made into parts of your body, which can change the relative risk profile.
posted by KathrynT at 10:11 AM on March 17, 2011 [7 favorites]

Ah, ok. Yes, the Soviets set an incredibly low mark for candidness. I'd also say TEPCO and the Japanese government have held information back. Possibly in order to prevent panic, I don't know.

I guess though that, given how the US has at times handled crises like Katrina, I'm still impressed. It seems among other things that Japan has laws that require candid disclosure of key events, and for that I'm impressed.
posted by zippy at 10:13 AM on March 17, 2011

In light of the circumstances, I'd prefer that greater priority be given to rectifying the reactor situation than worrying about complete transparency at this particular time. The Japanese government & TEPCO both know that the world has all eyes affixed on them & that their every action/inaction will be scrutinized & dissected for years to come, but right now peoples' lives & well-being are endangered.
posted by PepperMax at 10:19 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

norm, be sure to compare biological half-life with physical half-life.

I appreciate the help. I remain flummoxed that there is little or no distinction between emitted waves and particles in news coverage, and am trying to educate myself on that point. Obviously one will have acute risks and the other will create both acute risks and chronic contamination over weeks/months/years/millenia.
posted by norm at 10:22 AM on March 17, 2011

One thing that might help is to know that anything reported in Sieverts has already been dose-corrected for the higher immediate health risks from particle emissions. It does squat for correcting for stuff like biological uptake, though.
posted by KathrynT at 10:24 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

NYTimes:

Danger of Spent Fuel Outweighs Reactor Threat
Some countries have tried to limit the number of spent fuel rods that accumulate at nuclear power plants — Germany stores them in costly casks, for example, while Chinese nuclear reactors send them to a desert storage compound in western China’s Gansu province. But Japan, like the United States, has kept ever larger numbers of spent fuel rods in temporary storage pools at the power plants, where they can be guarded with the same security provided for the power plant.

Figures provided by Tokyo Electric Power on Thursday show that most of the dangerous uranium at the power plant is actually in the spent fuel rods, not the reactor cores themselves. The electric utility said that a total of 11,195 spent fuel rod assemblies were stored at the site. That is in addition to 400 to 600 fuel rod assemblies that had been in active service in each of the three troubled reactors.

There's been some discussion throughout this thread about what the counts of spent fuel rod assemblies versus spent fuel rods, active fuel rods, etc., at the site are. This seems like a pretty clear statement of the facts.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:26 AM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

""He said 'The future of nuclear power generation depends on how we'll cope with this. I'll go with a sense of mission'... I've never been more proud of him," she added."

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one.

But still...
posted by markkraft at 10:27 AM on March 17, 2011

The Edmonton Journal piece is really only comparing the government reactions to each disaster (Chernobyl and Fukushima), not the effects. Talking about transparency is not really useful when talking about which disaster is worse. In the best case scenario, Futaba-cho, where the Fukushima plant is located, is going to be a no-go zone for quite some time. And I can't get my head around how the containment pools are going to be stabilized if it's impossible to even approach them to find out what's going on.

Besides the health toll, the likely economic toll from the nuclear accident alone is going to really hurt Japan. Who is ever going to buy ag products from the Tohoku region ever again?
posted by KokuRyu at 10:28 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'm stunned by the most recent closeup flyby posted here. I had only seen distant images of the blown-up buildings before, and for some reason I imagined the missing 'panels' were light-weight things. Seeing thick reinforced concrete blasted outward, rebar bent, I have a better understanding for the incredible force of the hydrogen blasts. The fuel assemblies in many of those pools must have taken incredible damage. Whatever configuration they were in initially, before all this started, they're certainly not in the same positions now.
posted by zippy at 10:29 AM on March 17, 2011

Harvard Business Review compares BP oil spill crisis management with Fukushima.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:30 AM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

___________

Ex-Sandia engineer talks about some of the worst things that could happen in Japan

Dr. Michael Allen, vice provost for research and dean of graduate studies at Middle Tennessee State University, spent much of his early career at Sandia National Labs studying nuclear reactor accidents of the worst kind and performing simulations to better understand how bad things happen -- including core meltdowns.

"These things play out over a long period of time, longer than people would think," Allen said. "You have an earthquake that lasts maybe a minute, a tsunami that lasts maybe 15 minutes. But these things could go on for months. You could lose all six of the reactors."

If workers are unable to get additional cooling water into the reactor vessel, the molten fuel core will collapse into the water in bottom of the vessel. Eventually the heat from the decaying fuel would boil away the water that's left, leaving the core sitting on the vessel's lower head made of steel.

Should that happen, "It'll melt through it like butter," Allen said.

That, in turn, would cause a "high-pressure melt injection" into the water-filled concrete cavity below the reactor. Because the concrete would likely be unheated, the reaction created by the sudden injection of the reactor's ultra-hot content would be immense, he said.

"It'll be like somebody dropped a bomb, and there'll be a big cloud of very, very radioactive material above the ground," Allen said, noting that it would contain uranium and plutonium, as well as the fission products.

Should these events happen, the best outcome would be if the winds are blowing east and push the radioactive plume over the Pacific Ocean, he said. "It (the radioactivity) will fall out in the ocean and everything will be fine," he said.

The worst case, Allen said, would be if winds pushed a radioactive cloud south toward Tokyo and Japan's highly populated cities. If that were to happen, he said, the consequences would likely be greater than the 1986 accident at Chernobyl, where an entire area of Ukraine had to be evacuated because of the radioactive conditions that increased the risk of developing cancer.

___________

Tokyo Radiation Risk Limited Even in Worst Case, U.K. Says

UK Chief Scientific Officer Professor John Beddington ... specialises in the application of economics and biology to particular problems in the management of fisheries and other renewable resources.

“In this reasonable worst case, you get an explosion,” he said. “Now, that’s really serious, but it’s serious again for the local area. It’s not serious for elsewhere.”

Tokyo is about 240 kilometers southwest of the damaged power plant.

Even if weather patterns carried radioactive material toward Tokyo on the wind and in rain, there would be “absolutely no issue” for city residents, he said. The radioactive pollution would fall out of the sky before it got more than 20 kilometers or 30 kilometers from the damaged reactor, he said.
posted by panaceanot at 10:33 AM on March 17, 2011 [6 favorites]

cdalight: "Could someone share again what it is CTMF is doing over theref? I missed it somewhere along the line and have a feeling I shouldn't have. Thanks again for everything here Mefites and CTMF whatever it IS you're doing - bless you for it. Take good care and stay safe"

ctmf: "NARAC is one of the groups on the line when we man up the Emergency Command Centers. Someone from there is on the conference call 24/7, along with command/control personnel, plant engineering experts, emergency response resources, monitoring teams [me], radiological assessment experts, and public relations staff (to field questions from the press, but more importantly to keep affected area public officials in the loop with technical info, something that seems to be lacking in Japan at the moment)."

ctmf: "I'll be doing monitoring for affected outlying areas, determining the spread and magnitude of the casualty. Also, I'll be doing decon for the people and equipment (helicopters, planes, ships, etc.)"

So, monitoring and decontamination as a part of an emercgency response team.
posted by mwhybark at 10:38 AM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

NARAC - National Atmospheric Release Advisory Commission
posted by warbaby at 10:41 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

In light of the circumstances, I'd prefer that greater priority be given to rectifying the reactor situation than worrying about complete transparency at this particular time.

I agree with this statement, but I will also argue that the people responsible for communicating with the public are rarely the same ones putting out the actual fires. However, there will be plenty of time to analyze what went right and what went wrong, who or what is to blame and what we can learn from all this. Until the disaster is over, if you aren't offering help you are just noise or getting in the way.

I appreciate the help. I remain flummoxed that there is little or no distinction between emitted waves and particles in news coverage, and am trying to educate myself on that point.

One thing I knew before (but thanks to other MeFiers, I am far more educated in) is that radiation is not a simple number. There are different types of radiation and different isotopes can have much different health risks. But this might be too difficult to fit into an easily digestible news bite. Stephen Hawking remarked that each equation in a book halves it's sales. I imagine there is a similar formula for television. For each grade level of education required to understand a news story (or sitcom), the viewers are halved. Just a theory.
posted by chemoboy at 10:42 AM on March 17, 2011

> you still need to keep it covered with water so that its casing (made of zincaloy) doesn't start reacting with air to form hydrogen.

Small correction (this is something that confused me too): the hydrogen is formed when zirconium in the zircaloy cladding reacts with water to form zirconium oxide plus hydrogen gas. (See this previously linked source for the reaction equation.) This oxidation only happens at high temperatures, so when the water in the pool is cool no hydrogen is formed. Hot water may be worse than no water, in terms of hydrogen production. Speculation: when the cladding is hot it presumably can react with atmospheric oxygen, but I don't think that would produce hydrogen or anything explosive. So many variables to juggle - I can't imagine what it's like for the people on site who are making the decisions.
posted by Quietgal at 10:54 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

The free iPhone app End of Page is useful for navigating this huge thread.

Mods-any chance of breaking this into pages of 100 or so? Reload times are forever on a slow connection.
posted by karst at 11:03 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

Mods-any chance of breaking this into pages of 100 or so? Reload times are forever on a slow connection.

The end of a 3000 comment thread is really not the place to ask. If folks want to talk about htis, I'd suggest MetaTalk. If you're not commenting you can just wait for the little "show new comments" thing to load. Generally speaking a 1000+ comment thread is rare enough that we haven't built anything specifically for this sort of event. It may be time for someone to create a new thread if this one is pushing the boundaries of what people can handle.
posted by jessamyn at 11:08 AM on March 17, 2011

Reload times are forever on a slow connection.
I've been reloading 'Recent Activity' instead of this page to see new comments.
posted by yeoz at 11:08 AM on March 17, 2011

Mods-any chance of breaking this into pages of 100 or so? Reload times are forever on a slow connection.

I'm no mod, but pages of 100 comments or so are unlikely to happen since there would be dozens of them. Why are you reloading? We have the fancy new "n new comments" javascript thing, which is darn fast.
posted by zachlipton at 11:09 AM on March 17, 2011

There's also an RSS feed for this thread, which may be easier to follow depending on what app you use for RSS.
posted by burnmp3s at 11:11 AM on March 17, 2011

Sometimes, on a device, the page reloads whether you want it to or not. This happened on my iPod touch last night several times. I switched to Recent Activity. Also, the "n new comments" feature only works if you are willing to keep the page open all the time.
posted by devinemissk at 11:11 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

This oxidation only happens at high temperatures, so when the water in the pool is cool no hydrogen is formed. Hot water may be worse than no water, in terms of hydrogen production. Speculation: when the cladding is hot it presumably can react with atmospheric oxygen, but I don't think that would produce hydrogen or anything explosive. So many variables to juggle - I can't imagine what it's like for the people on site who are making the decisions.

The problem, as I understand it, is that when uncovered the spent fuel will heat past the point needed to ignite the cladding (as well as possibly to ignite debris in or around the pool etc), will be releasing huge amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere--possibly to be carried away in a plume from fires started even w/o another hydrogen explosion--and can then melt through the bottom of the pool which would presumably be catastrophic in that it would both breach primary containment and possibly the reactor pressure vessel itself. (Also, I think the hydrogen release accelerates as the water level drops and the water heats, even if it might cease when the water fully boils off. But I was not great at chemistry in high school.)

As one of the safety studies posted yesterday mentioned, since water is a moderator there is a design tension between making pools become inherently safer in the event of water loss by reducing reactivity vs. increasing temperature.

And that's probably still missing a few points.

Pardon the fractured wording, trying and failing to pay attention to the lecture I'm sitting in...
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:12 AM on March 17, 2011

Are my "today's summary" points generally fair?

* If they're getting water into the reactor to cool it via external pumping/dumping, there is a big reactor breach.
* When you hear "radiation plume", it means "plume of radioactive particles, and they aren't generally telling us what type those are".
* Even if these radioactive particles make it over the US, they aren't likely to get down to the ground absent precipitation, and even then in ridiculously diluted levels.
* The plant will never run again, and the size of the permanent or semi-permanent exclusion zone will vary wildly depending on which nightmare plays out.
* Even if power is restored, the pipes are likely so damaged that it won't mean that they can start running the coolant systems at anything resembling 'normal'.
* It will be months before we know if this is under control.
posted by norm at 11:12 AM on March 17, 2011

maybe "radioactive particulate" so as not to step on the toes of wave/particle duality of the radiation itself?
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:19 AM on March 17, 2011

If they're getting water into the reactor to cool it via external pumping/dumping, there is a big reactor breach.

If the reactor(s) are still intact, and water hits the reactor, and turns to steam, it will bring down the temperature of the walls and they will bring down the temperature of the fuel inside. It's not nearly as effective as pumping water inside, for obvious reasons. It's still definitely effective to some degree: if you see steam, that's a large amount of energy that was taken out of something.

The rest seems spot-on.
posted by rainy at 11:21 AM on March 17, 2011

Are the two articles linked to by panaceanot contradictory or not? I'm trying to wrap my head around it. Is this quote below a fact, more or less?

Even if weather patterns carried radioactive material toward Tokyo on the wind and in rain, there would be “absolutely no issue” for city residents, he said. The radioactive pollution would fall out of the sky before it got more than 20 kilometers or 30 kilometers from the damaged reactor, he said.
posted by dubitable at 11:23 AM on March 17, 2011

Robin Young, the Here and Now host on NPR, keeps iterating over "but what about a China Syndrome situation?! ZOMG!" even after her nuclear engineering expert guests keep telling her to focus on the current situation and not on scenarios out of disaster films.

"Punch 'Em In The Dick" is playing in my head.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 11:23 AM on March 17, 2011 [7 favorites]

If they're getting water into the reactor to cool it via external pumping/dumping, there is a big reactor breach.

Maybe not - I think they're trying to spray water into the storage pools, which are like open-topped swimming pools containing 5 years worth of spent fuel. The storage pools are near the top of each building (for easy swapping of fuel from the reactor into the pool).
posted by memebake at 11:24 AM on March 17, 2011

Are the two articles linked to by panaceanot contradictory or not?

They read that way to me.

UK Chief Scientific Officer Professor John Beddington ... specialises in the application of economics and biology to particular problems in the management of fisheries and other renewable resources.

Taking a look at the state of British fisheries doesn't inspire me to trust him in his field, much less commenting on meterology, disaster management, and nuclear science.
posted by rodgerd at 11:25 AM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

mwhybark - thank you
posted by cdalight at 11:26 AM on March 17, 2011

re: thread management: reading the thread is OK, cos of the 'load new comments' thing, but posting comments is getting tricky because the whole thread reloads.
posted by memebake at 11:28 AM on March 17, 2011

* The plant will never run again, and the size of the permanent or semi-permanent exclusion zone will vary wildly depending on which nightmare plays out.

Reactors 5 & 6 are not beyond salvage at this time, is my understanding.
posted by scalefree at 11:29 AM on March 17, 2011

Yep contradictory.

That's why I included the bit of bio about John Beddington I looked up. I've been using his statements to calm my nerves about potential worst case scenarios. But Dr Michael Allen's worst case scares the living bejeezus out of me.

35 million refugees from one of the greatest metropolis' on the planet?
posted by panaceanot at 11:33 AM on March 17, 2011

If there's any good news, there's no Cherenkov radiation visible.

NHK World is showing a clip from a flyby that keeps pointing out daylight-visible "silver light" (their words) visible coming from deep in the rubble of #3, probably from the spent fuel pool that's running out of water. A partially empty pool would indeed glow brighter, especially if the stored fuel assemblies were increasingly active.

It sure looks like Cherenkov radiation to me, which isn't reassuring at all considering daylight viewing from a shaky helicopter cam.

Watching NHK World has been maddening. It's been the same loops over and over again for the last 12 hours, and it's apparent to me that they're not able to do enough, that things are far from under control. While they are heroic efforts, those four water drops were mere gestures. A journalist called it "using a squirt gun on a forest fire" and I think he's being kind.

Five fire trucks? They need 500. They need dozens and dozens of fixed or rotary ring aerial fire-fighting water tankers lined up for miles continuously dumping water and sodium polyborate. They need thousands and thousands of people on the ground ready for a suicide mission, not 50-100.

The lack of information and the unwillingness of TEPCO and Japan to accept more direct help on the plant site is extremely alarming. It makes me think they're hiding something. Maybe they're hiding the amount of fuel they've actually stored, or hiding evidence of past accidents and problems, or maybe they're hiding a fuel enrichment experiment or something.

I've been trying to avoid commenting over the last 24-48 hours because I don't really have anything to say except "oh, shit." Really, this is much worse than I thought it would be even when I was freaking out during the first 24-48 hours. Between the massive piles of used fuel and multiple potentially melted/breached cores, we're just short of a Chernobyl grade crisis.

And they don't have it under control. Sorry to be a pessimist but they're not going to have it under control for some time. They're not throwing enough resources at it. That plant is utterly wrecked. The damage is incredibly severe. I'm having issues believing there's enough plumbing left intact to make pumping coolant water possible or effective.

If anyone has anything positive to say that's more reassuring than the tepid talking points and doublespeak that TEPCO keeps reiterating on NHK I'm all ears.

There's people better trained and there's no way I could get there and then through the labyrinth of authority, but I feel so strongly about this that I'm pretty much willing to volunteer for a suicide mission myself if there's enough people to volunteer with me to make a difference and actually get shit done. I can't be alone in this thought.
posted by loquacious at 11:35 AM on March 17, 2011 [11 favorites]

35 million refugees doesn't really seem possible. I'm not sure speculation about evacuation of Tokyo serves any purpose but to terrify....
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:36 AM on March 17, 2011

norm: more or less not too far from what's happening (to my understanding), but I quibble with some details:

If they're getting water into the reactor to cool it via external pumping/dumping, there is a big reactor breach.
There is a difference between the reactors and the spent fuel storage pools. Each storage pool are within the same building as its reactor, but the pool is outside the pressure vessel and containment vessel, while the reactor itself is the space inside the pressure vessel. It is clear that the storage pool in reactor #3 is quite severely exposed to the open air, while the storage pool in reactor #4 is also rather exposed. What's really important though is not whether there's a roof over the pool, but whether there is water in the pool (the water absorbs the radiation, the roof isn't for containment). That's what they've been doing with the helicopters and water cannons: trying to get some water into the #3 reactor's storage pool.

As far as the reactor cores themselves, some of them contain fuel and need to have water pumped in to keep them cool. The fact that they have been getting water in doesn't mean that the containment is breached here, as there are pipes designed for exactly this purpose (the reactor is filled with freshwater during normal operation). We do believe that the pressure vessels and/or containment vessels in some of the reactors are damaged, but we don't know to what extent exactly.

Even if these radioactive particles make it over the US, they aren't likely to get down to the ground absent precipitation, and even then in ridiculously diluted levels.
This point bears repeating. Radiation disperses as it travels, so the amount that would reach thousands of miles away would be far less than near the source.

Even if power is restored, the pipes are likely so damaged that it won't mean that they can start running the coolant systems at anything resembling 'normal'.
We really don't know and this depends on the reactors. For example, reactors #5 and #6 are believed to be undamaged and are offline, but the temperatures in their spent fuel storage pools is rising several degrees every day as the water inside evaporates. Getting power to those reactors would probably be a big help in reactivating cooling systems and controlling that situation before it gets worse. In the other reactors, I don't think we have any idea. Reactor #3 looks pretty darn damaged from the photos, but power might still help them run auxiliary pumps or other emergency equipment. Having power expands the options and might help to control at least some of the problems at the plant, but I don't think anyone expects it to be a magic bullet.

The plant will never run again, and the size of the permanent or semi-permanent exclusion zone will vary wildly depending on which nightmare plays out.
Other reactors at Chernobyl ran for years. Japan has a serious electricity shortage right now, so operating the #5 and #6 reactors if it can be done reasonably safely (e.g. at the same safety level as before the earthquake/tsunami) and if workers can be on-site without exceeding radiation exposure limits might well be an option once the situation is contained and the operation moves into the clean-up phase. It's too early to tell though, and political considerations may well play a role.
posted by zachlipton at 11:40 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

35 million refugees doesn't really seem possible. I'm not sure speculation about evacuation of Tokyo serves any purpose but to terrify....

Well, if it becomes necessary, it might help in planning and coordinating a reasonably organized evacuation not to wait until the last possible second to face the fact that evacuation might be necessary (at which point there will almost surely be a great deal of what might have been avoidable panic).
posted by saulgoodman at 11:40 AM on March 17, 2011

Five fire trucks? They need 500.

I keep wondering how long it take to decontaminate one of those trucks afterwards, if it is at all possible, and if they are limiting the number they use because committing a truck to this fight means it's never going to be usable for normal fires.
posted by nomisxid at 11:41 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Well, if it becomes necessary....

I think you may miss my point. What if it becomes neccessary to evacuate the planet? Like, a month from now? Starting to plan now won't help.

Maybe--maybe--evacuating youth and pregnant women is feasible.

But again, I'm reluctant to get into this stuff here.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:45 AM on March 17, 2011

I keep wondering how long it take to decontaminate one of those trucks afterwards, if it is at all possible, and if they are limiting the number they use because committing a truck to this fight means it's never going to be usable for normal fires.

It depends whether they're being exposed to radiation from radioactive material that is staying inside the plant, or whether radioactive material is actually being dispersed.

If there isn't radioactive material being dispersed, then there really isn't much to decontaminate. As soon as you get away from the plant, the radioactivity goes away.
posted by empath at 11:45 AM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Japanese authorities have informed the IAEA that engineers were able to lay an external grid power line cable to unit 2. The operation was completed at 08:30 UTC.

They plan to reconnect power to unit 2 once the spraying of water on the unit 3 reactor building is completed. (May be a delayed re-reporting, hard to say)
posted by Skorgu at 11:47 AM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

Generally speaking a 1000+ comment thread is rare enough that we haven't built anything specifically for this sort of event.

Sorta the theme of the last week or so.
posted by notyou at 11:49 AM on March 17, 2011 [20 favorites]

scalefree: So if recriticality isn't even theoretically possible, why have we spent so much time talking about recriticality? Why was it even brought up in the first place?

Good question, I think this has been addressed, but I'll try and sum up:

Earlier we had a bit of a look at recriticality in this thread as a worst case scenario, based on the idea of the fuel rods melting and the spent fuel pooling up in the bottom of the storage pool.

But then ob1quixote and vasi point out that the type of uranium used is deliberately low-enriched, so that criticality cannot occur without a moderator. ionized agrees. Popular ethics isn't so sure, because the config of the rods is unknown and we're adding water which could turn to steam and become a moderator. Procloeon says brief recriticality may be possible due to water/steam.

Tepco themselves said "The possibility of recriticality is not zero", although perhaps they were referring to the reactor cores rather than the storage pools.

In summary - perhaps its less likely than we thought, but I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Several people have pointed out that just a very hot fire in the storage pools that sends a plume into the air is the main worry, and criticality is not needed for that to happen.
posted by memebake at 11:53 AM on March 17, 2011 [10 favorites]

Watching NHK World has been maddening. It's been the same loops over and over again for the last 12 hours, and it's apparent to me that they're not able to do enough, that things are far from under control. While they are heroic efforts, those four water drops were mere gestures. A journalist called it "using a squirt gun on a forest fire" and I think he's being kind.

It's interesting to me that as this crisis has gone on, NHK World has become progressively less and less useful, while US/UK media is getting (at least somewhat) better. I've been following this pretty closely (ok, obsessively) since the situation started, and initially NHK World, Twitter, the Yokosoko News guy, and this thread were really the only place to go. CNN and MSNBC were consistently about 6-12 hours behind in reporting information from the Japanese press. Now, western media sites like the Guardian Liveblog and the NYTimes liveblog have been doing a pretty good job of relaying information. Last night, CNN seemed to be running only an hour behind NHK World on reporting government announcements, which is far better than before.

Meanwhile, NHK World has become increasingly silly. Besides the same loops and replays of earlier newscasts, they cut off press conferences in the middle, and follow some kind of insane schedule that requires substantial time be given to the business news and weather forecasts, even in the middle of a nuclear crisis. They literally go "here's the Emperor's address...and now, on to the business news." If a situation ever called from a deviation from the normal news format, this is it. On the other hand, they have a kick ass diorama, so that's cool. They have also been doing some decent reporting on the humanitarian situation farther north, which has been increasingly dire as temperatures have dropped below freezing and many earthquake victims are in shelters without adequate or any heating and some are becoming ill.

If you can catch it, NHK World does do a translated simulcast of the regular NHK main newscasts (I think 9am and noon Japan time, probably one in the evening too), which is helpful and a little less awkward than the NHK World news.
posted by zachlipton at 11:53 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

And they don't have it under control. Sorry to be a pessimist but they're not going to have it under control for some time. They're not throwing enough resources at it. That plant is utterly wrecked. The damage is incredibly severe. I'm having issues believing there's enough plumbing left intact to make pumping coolant water possible or effective.

Where are those resources going to come from assuming they wanted to throw them at it. It isn't like there are 500 idle fire trucks and trained crews just sitting around with full tanks of gas ready to drive up to the nuke plant. You need to organize them, get gas, plan routes and give them instructions. that's after you figure out if you have passable enough roads and fuel depots. I hope they are doing all they can but I also understand that there are limits on what is actually available.

Generators vs. Power lines

I suspect that generators are not going to be nuclear hardened and are probably having all kinds of problems running in this environment. I would expect that a power line would have fewer problems and would be able to run the pumps better, assuming that anything is working. At least you won't need to worry about getting enough diesel in place to keep things running.
posted by humanfont at 11:55 AM on March 17, 2011

You can see the 'silver light' flash (see what I did there?) between 36 and 39 seconds in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBXqiw6EJUk#t=36s

it's very brief, too bad we can't link to specific frames, unless we can and I am stoopit.

Also, on space-bar-pausing the playback, it appears that my YT playback drops frames, I did not see the flash every single time. YMMV.
posted by mwhybark at 11:56 AM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

That's why I included the bit of bio about John Beddington I looked up. I've been using his statements to calm my nerves about potential worst case scenarios. But Dr Michael Allen's worst case scares the living bejeezus out of me.

Well, so, here's the thing I'm trying to understand panaceanot, considering what many folks have been saying, for example zachlipton's comment just now, radioactive elements aren't necessarily carried so far (but I don't understand how this works yet, like how much *could* be carried to Tokyo), and the greater worry is long-term contamination and aftereffects from that (stuff like the thyroid cancer from drinking milk discussed in regards to Chernobyl, for example). That's what I really want to understand.

That's the thing that bothers me about that first article you posted; say what you will about the more comforting one from the British authority, that first one doesn't really explain itself well but is just full of scariness: "The worst case, Allen said, would be if winds pushed a radioactive cloud south toward Tokyo and Japan's highly populated cities. If that were to happen, he said, the consequences would likely be greater than the 1986 accident at Chernobyl, where an entire area of Ukraine had to be evacuated because of the radioactive conditions that increased the risk of developing cancer." I want to have a better understanding of why this particular comparison with Chernobyl is valid in this case (although such an explanation may not be forthcoming...).
posted by dubitable at 11:57 AM on March 17, 2011

I get your point--we're probably not the ones realistically in the best position to say what is or isn't possible right now. I don't disagree that there's not much utility in us here on MeFi entertaining such possibilities (unless we might also contribute somehow to planning for the eventuality), but if you're at all like me, you won't be able to help noticing this thread is literally full of claims that certain scenarios are so unlikely that seriously discussing them amounts to nothing more than politically-motivated doom-mongering--and yet, many of those "extreme" claim have since been unceremoniously refuted by reality.

Risk planning isn't just about planning for things you know with certainty are going to happen. In fact, if that's as far as it went, we wouldn't have anything we could call risk planning and disaster preparedness at all. If it's not possible to rule out a potential need to evacuate at this point, at least some form of provisional planning should already be underway--even if it later proves to be pointless. Granted, it should be done cautiously, without committing so far the effort is a total waste, but why shouldn't basic planning for such a contingency be on the table? Far from promoting panic, I think it would make people feel more in control of the situation to know there's a solid plan B.

They plan to reconnect power to unit 2 once the spraying of water on the unit 3 reactor building is completed. (May be a delayed re-reporting, hard to say)

I think it is. It was reported up-thread that the restoration of power had been put off until the 19th.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:58 AM on March 17, 2011

Several people have pointed out that just a very hot fire in the storage pools that sends a plume into the air is the main worry, and criticality is not needed for that to happen.

Yeah, this is the nightmare scenario: a fire that spews radioactive particles all over the place.

They're not throwing enough resources at it. That plant is utterly wrecked. The damage is incredibly severe. I'm having issues believing there's enough plumbing left intact to make pumping coolant water possible or effective.

Once again, yeah, it's not as though there is a surplus of trained people available to do this kind of work. And if they hook up the power, is there anything left of the cooling system to power up?
posted by KokuRyu at 11:59 AM on March 17, 2011

WBEZ Chicago news just reported that people getting off a flight from Tokyo at O'Hare are setting off the TSA radiation detectors. Chicago Tribune article here; it's pretty much zero-information, though, especially considering that it has no mention of how those detectors are calibrated, or where those passengers had been before they went to Tokyo for their flight.

There's a lot of potential scenarios for that-- people coming from Fukushima Prefecture to Tokyo to get the hell out, the detectors being set for elevated but not risky levels of radiation, everything being much worse than stated. Just another data point on contamination until we know more.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 12:08 PM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

We're already in the nightmare scenario. It's a question of how much worse it gets before we wake up to a new morning.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:09 PM on March 17, 2011

Can you describe a bit better where you see the flash? For example, the support skeleton for the facade seems to be made up of structural members delineating a 6x6 array of openings. In the second opening from the left, on the top row, I do see somthing bright come into view, I'm not sure I would call it a flash....
posted by Chuckles at 12:11 PM on March 17, 2011

Well, so, here's the thing I'm trying to understand panaceanot, considering what many folks have been saying, for example zachlipton's comment just now, radioactive elements aren't necessarily carried so far (but I don't understand how this works yet, like how much *could* be carried to Tokyo)

To be clear about my comment, I was referring to radiative particles being carried to the West Coast of the US in sufficient amounts to have even a trivial effect on humans. We might detect radiation as it travels, but that's just because science has really really sensitive detectors that can measure tiny changes. I'm not of the "a little radiation is good for you" school, but if radiation levels are .001% greater than normal, that's not at all significant. Radon exposure in your home or just higher levels of natural background radiation in some areas is a far far bigger factor at that point. We know how far radiation traveled during Chernobyl, and it didn't cause a leukemia epidemic in Western Europe.

As far as Tokyo's potential exposure in various doomsday scenarios, I have no clue.
posted by zachlipton at 12:12 PM on March 17, 2011

WBEZ Chicago news just reported that people getting off a flight from Tokyo at O'Hare are setting off the TSA radiation detectors.

From what I'm reading, it appears these detectors can be pretty darn sensitive. People who have received some radio-medicine scans have set them off before, and the NYPD was strip searching a patient at subway stations after he set off their detectors.
posted by zachlipton at 12:16 PM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

To be clear about my comment, I was referring to radiative particles being carried to the West Coast of the US in sufficient amounts to have even a trivial effect on humans.

Oh, totally zachlipton—that was clear in your original comment. I was just referring to that as part of a more general statement about how radioactive materials are carried and dispersed. But as you say, "As far as Tokyo's potential exposure in various doomsday scenarios, I have no clue." —that's exactly what I'd love to understand better. It's really not clear to me what *could* happen. But I suppose no one really knows right now, and like the rest of us, I'm grasping at straws.
posted by dubitable at 12:17 PM on March 17, 2011

I keep wondering how long it take to decontaminate one of those trucks afterwards, if it is at all possible, and if they are limiting the number they use because committing a truck to this fight means it's never going to be usable for normal fires.

There's an entire boneyard of hundreds/thousands of contaminated vehicles around Chernobyl.

Where are those resources going to come from assuming they wanted to throw them at it. It isn't like there are 500 idle fire trucks and trained crews just sitting around with full tanks of gas ready to drive up to the nuke plant. You need to organize them, get gas, plan routes and give them instructions. that's after you figure out if you have passable enough roads and fuel depots. I hope they are doing all they can but I also understand that there are limits on what is actually available.

Yeah, I know. There's a huge logistics and supply issue.

This is something that should have been planned for. Every nuclear power plant or reactor needs to have a dedicated fire and crisis response department that includes a fuel depot, an array of suitable vehicles on standby dedicated to the plant, a massive store of water and they should all exist in overkill "this will never happen" numbers. This response center should be off site and it needs a clean, easily cleared road to approach the reactors and plant. But that's hindsight, and we don't have that.

I'm having trouble believing that an entity like the US Army can storm Baghdad and storm an entire country with thousands and thousands of ground vehicles and tens of thousands of troops in less time than it takes to get more than a few dozen vehicles and 50-100 response workers on a site.

There's not enough trained response workers? There's not enough response vehicles? Yeah, sounds like a profits before safety issue. Fuck. All. Of. That, and fuck you, TEPCO. Fuck you very much.
posted by loquacious at 12:19 PM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

Just FYI, I once set off a TSA nitroglycerin detector because the hand cream in my hotel room contained a lot of glycerin. I wouldn't get too freaked.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:20 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Why is our only footage of the reactor some shakycam from a copter? Why do we not have the planet earth gyro stabilized zoom rig mounted to a copter, showing what's really going on?
posted by Lord_Pall at 12:21 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

If they're getting water into the reactor to cool it via external pumping/dumping, there is a big reactor breach.

There is a difference between the reactors and the spent fuel storage pools.

Yes. Based on what's been said about how long it would take water in the storage pool to boil off, I think the following is true: If they're getting water into the storage pool to cool it via external pumping/dumping, there is a big storage pool breach.

That is, it sounds like (from what reputable sources have said) it should not be possible for enough water to have boiled off the storage pools by now to expose any of the spent fuel. Since it sounds like spent fuel has been exposed, that leads to the worry that the pools may have some sort of leak (possibly from earthquake damage). That wouldn't be good at all.
posted by klausness at 12:22 PM on March 17, 2011

Yeah, to me that looked like just a gap in the structural beams, not a flash.

The video mrwhybark linked to isn't the video that I saw on NHK. The time he's linking to is of reactor #4. The NHK video I saw was of reactor #3. They actually did a freeze-frame on it, and there's a very noticeable silver-blue glow illuminating wreckage deep inside the debris of reactor #3.
posted by loquacious at 12:23 PM on March 17, 2011

Why is our only footage of the reactor some shakycam from a copter?

Where's the guy who stabilized the earthquake footage several days back? We could use him here, and it would not just be for curiosity's sake.
posted by dhartung at 12:23 PM on March 17, 2011

There's not enough trained response workers? There's not enough response vehicles?

A rather large natural disaster happened in Japan last Friday. You might have seen it on the news. Given the nature and scale of this disaster it is quite possible that all available response workers are stuck doing more important things than standing around next to a nuclear reactor that no-one can figure out how to fix.
posted by Authorized User at 12:26 PM on March 17, 2011 [8 favorites]

I don't know what this is meant to accomplish. TEPCO employees are already risking their lives right now to fix this.
posted by empath at 12:26 PM on March 17, 2011

"Detectors set for elevated but not risky levels of radiation" seems more likely to me than "everything much worse than stated" just because there are a bunch of radiation monitoring posts in the Touhoku area. Google map of radiation monitoring posts. The ones closest to the plant are not being updated, but for example, Iwaki is showing 1 µSv/hr, and a bunch of cities in Ibaraki are ~0.3 µSv/hr. Background radiation is about 0.05 µSv/hr, so these are elevated levels, but you'd need 3000 hours of exposure to even get as much radiation as a mammogram.

I'm concerned about how much Cesium is around, and how long levels are going to stay elevated, but unless we assume that all those radiation monitors are faulty or lying... the rest of Japan is not highly radioactive.
posted by Jeanne at 12:27 PM on March 17, 2011

Five fire trucks? They need 500.

I keep wondering how long it take to decontaminate one of those trucks afterwards, if it is at all possible, and if they are limiting the number they use because committing a truck to this fight means it's never going to be usable for normal fires.

I'm not sure if I was seeing things but I swear I saw a clip on CNN this morning that showed fire trucks from Ohio rolling down the highway in Japan.
posted by smoothvirus at 12:30 PM on March 17, 2011

I'm having trouble believing that an entity like the US Army can storm Baghdad and storm an entire country with thousands and thousands of ground vehicles and tens of thousands of troops in less time than it takes to get more than a few dozen vehicles and 50-100 response workers on a site.

The U.S. Army can't do dat. There was a lengthy, massive amount of preparation work--moving people and equipment, etc.--and planning so they were able to do that when they were ordered to do it.
posted by ambient2 at 12:30 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Not all problems are solved through the application of MORE. 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month.
posted by nomisxid at 12:31 PM on March 17, 2011 [14 favorites]

it should not be possible for enough water to have boiled off the storage pools by now to expose any of the spent fuel.

I don't think that's true. Popular Ethics found a reference saying it would take 6 days, but that with higher packing density it would happen faster. The storage pools have been reracked to increase packing density at least once and probably a couple of times (another thread ref). Also, Reactor 4 has fresh fuel in it that will put off more heat.
posted by Chuckles at 12:32 PM on March 17, 2011

That is, it sounds like (from what reputable sources have said) it should not be possible for enough water to have boiled off the storage pools by now to expose any of the spent fuel. Since it sounds like spent fuel has been exposed, that leads to the worry that the pools may have some sort of leak (possibly from earthquake damage). That wouldn't be good at all.

Wouldn't a hydrogen explosion have boiled off/blown off a bunch of water?
posted by empath at 12:36 PM on March 17, 2011

empath: more likely that it caused a leak.
posted by rainy at 12:39 PM on March 17, 2011

COBRA!: "Can you describe a bit better where you see the flash? For example, the support skeleton for the facade seems to be made up of structural members delineating a 6x6 array of openings. In the second opening from the left, on the top row, I do see somthing bright come into view, I'm not sure I would call it a flash....
posted by Chuckles

Yeah, to me that looked like just a gap in the structural beams, not a flash"

That's what the NHK is describing as a flash (their graphic includes a helpful big red circle). It's a pinprick in the upper right corner of the framing, and if you consider the sightlines, it's not where daylight would flash through a structural gap.
posted by mwhybark at 12:39 PM on March 17, 2011

sorry, 'silver light,' not flash (geez, that time I didn't even mean to do it)
posted by mwhybark at 12:40 PM on March 17, 2011

I guess we all just kinda thought/hoped/worried that all along countries like the US and Russia had developed secret teams of bamf's with special secret sci-fi equipment that could be toted out in cases like this to make these things go away. they failed us in the gulf of mexico spill and they sure as hell aren't walking around all Red Adair style in Fukushima right now. this is not in any way meant to diminish the contributions of the real heroes who are trying to do something, it's just, well, you know, jetpacks by now goddammit!
posted by OHenryPacey at 12:40 PM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

Also, Reactor 4 has fresh fuel in it that will put off more heat.

I dunno that "fresh" is the right term. There are several tweets from Arclight yesterday on this topic; I've condensed them here for reference's sake; he was answering a Twitter member who asked "How long does it take a reactor to cool down once it is turned off and assuming cooling system operating properly?"

It depends on the power history of the specific core or batch of fuel. I can only describe the process of getting that #... Fission products build up based on length of time at a power level and decay away based on physical properties. Reactor engineers at plants carefully monitor core power with time. They need this info for fuel reloading & reporting. When I did fuel pool safety analysis (fuel drop accidents) we'd make conservative assumptions so we'd bound reality.

The original querent then asked "How close was your model to reality? Enough to predict with a degree of certainty?:, to which Arclight replied:

I didn't do reactor engineering work but yes, we were accurate enough that operations could use our numbers. There's an interplay between the operations staff (guys who touch the equipment) and engineers who analyze & design things; Ops takes a lot of data & compares it to predictions, that data is used to make better predictions, etc. This is why these sorts of accidents are very difficult to deal with - we lost a lot of monitoring to tell us plant state."

Querent then asked how you produce response strategies in the absence of real data; the response was "You make a lot of models & a lot of assumptions, develop a plan & run field exercises & fix what you find broken."
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 12:41 PM on March 17, 2011

I have started dumping the frames from the first flyover video posted at

http://funkaspuck.com/rawpics/FlyOverFrames/

The start of the section over the hole in reactor three begins around 520, and I don't see a flash, but that hole looks scary enough to me.

More scary are the lingering shots over the smashed up pipes leading to 3 & 4.
posted by nomisxid at 12:42 PM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

The lack of information and the unwillingness of TEPCO and Japan to accept more direct help on the plant site is extremely alarming. It makes me think they're hiding something.

It's basically what the U.S. did with Deep Water Horizon. A corrupt relationship between government and disaster-prone industry leads to lying and extra risk to hide the lying when the disaster comes.

If this happened in the States other nations would be evacuating their citizens while we claimed the danger was minimal.
posted by clarknova at 12:42 PM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

loquacious: "Yeah, to me that looked like just a gap in the structural beams, not a flash.

The video mrwhybark linked to isn't the video that I saw on NHK. The time he's linking to is of reactor #4. The NHK video I saw was of reactor #3. They actually did a freeze-frame on it, and there's a very noticeable silver-blue glow illuminating wreckage deep inside the debris of reactor #3"

hm, well, that's possible, but what I did was look for the same shot I saw on NHK that had a big red circle on it.
posted by mwhybark at 12:43 PM on March 17, 2011

Certainly "more heat" is correct, though. I don't mean to imply that the entire statement is wrong, just that "fresh" implies a level of knowledge we on the outside don't have.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 12:43 PM on March 17, 2011

"I'm having trouble believing that an entity like the US Army can storm Baghdad and storm an entire country with thousands and thousands of ground vehicles and tens of thousands of troops in less time than it takes to get more than a few dozen vehicles and 50-100 response workers on a site."

I think what we're going to see after the whole truth/timeline comes out is a determination that if they had been more honest about how much trouble they were in, and if they had been more forceful in asking for help, almost all of the problems we're seeing now could have been averted.

In other words, if they had said in the first 12 hours, "We have lost all power and cooling!!!! We have many tons of spent fuel on the roof losing coolant!!!! All backups are exhausted!!!! ANYONE WHO CAN, PLEASE SEND EVERYTHING, REPEAT, EVERYTHING ASAP!!!!", things would not be at this stage.

I'm sure the US Navy could have dropped enough power and pumping capability to run a small city if they had to. Along with enough electricians to hook it up, and enough drones to crawl in and over everything.

The PR Tempco sent in those first critical hours was more like, "There may be a minor problem....", and "we are evaluating backups for.....". This clearly was not what they knew was going on. It seems clear to me that what they knew was, exactly, all backups were gone, nuclear fuel was going to boil off all coolant, and power was nonexistent.

Straight up - I think they tried to hide what was going on, decided to go with twigs and duct tape as a solution, and if they'd asked for help it would be wildly less fubar right now.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:44 PM on March 17, 2011 [11 favorites]

Also, earthquake vibrations may have slopped some water out of the pool (you'd think they'd have designed against that, of course, but the generators were put in tsunami range...) and wreckage may have dropped into the pool and displaced water as well. It's distinctly possible, even probable that we are not dealing with the same amount of water as a starting point.

It's possible the US guy was feeding bad information, but I can think of one good reason why America would have first-hand knowledge of the state of Pool #4: we have been sending drones, spyplanes, and satellites over, and we have excellent thermal imaging capabilities. I would suspect the footprint of a fuel pool filled with water and one that had run dry and is heating up is thermally distinct.
posted by tavella at 12:44 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Ha ha, searching for 'NHK silver light' has very predictable results. sigh.
posted by mwhybark at 12:49 PM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

Not to ratchet up hysteria or such, and regarding minute amounts of radiation reaching the West Coast, note this report. Chicago? Dallas? Los Angeles?

Hey, flying anywhere can result in this or this from a more comprehensive analysis.
posted by WinstonJulia at 12:50 PM on March 17, 2011

So do we have recent data as to radiation levels in the plant? Have the cooling efforts in the various locations resulted in positive movement? It seems that even if they can't necessarily "fix" the problem being able to create some sort of equilibrium that prevents the situation from getting worse is definitely good news.

Decay heat in the 3 reactors should be reducing every day as the reactors begin cooling down naturally so increased cooling through external methods should help the process along.
posted by vuron at 12:51 PM on March 17, 2011

Loq, is this what you saw?

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/18_02.html
posted by mwhybark at 12:53 PM on March 17, 2011

aggravating, the freeze frame is not the image described in the copy. The copy does say the 'shining white object' is at #4. Well, have at it.
posted by mwhybark at 12:54 PM on March 17, 2011

WinstonJulia - That's TSA. It's like saying Glen beck detected radiation.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:56 PM on March 17, 2011

I'm not sure if I was seeing things but I swear I saw a clip on CNN this morning that showed fire trucks from Ohio rolling down the highway in Japan.

The USAF supplied two fire trucks (at least one from Yokota) to Fukushima a couple of days ago. That looks like a Pierce, but there's a fire equipment manufacturer in Ohio -- Sutphen -- that may have built the other one.

It wouldn't make a lot of sense to ship fire trucks to a country like Japan.
posted by dhartung at 12:56 PM on March 17, 2011

yes, they do highlight the same flash, with the big red circle.
posted by mwhybark at 12:56 PM on March 17, 2011

klausness: According to studies posted above, water in the spent fuel storage pool does boil off once the temp gets high enough, and it boils off at a rate of up to 6"/hour.

In the event that normal circulation of the cooling water is disrupted, e.g., due to station blackout, pump failure, pipe rupture, etc., the water temperature of the pool would steadily increase until bulk boiling occurred.... Even in the most pessimistic case ... the water level in the pool would drop only about 6 inches per hour. Thus, there is considerable time available to restore normal cooling or to implement one of several alternative backup options for cooling.

Severe Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools, in support of generic safety, V.L. Sailor, et al, Brookhaven National Laboratory. Issue 82. July, 1987.
linked by zippy above
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:57 PM on March 17, 2011

The light visible in the helicopter footage looks yellow rather than silver to me.

It's also the same color as the sunlight on the helicopter window/lens at 0:04.

It could be a regular fire in the building or, given the color match, an isolated shaft of sunlight hitting the steam.
posted by zippy at 12:59 PM on March 17, 2011

Loq, is this what you saw?

Are we talking about a dot in the bottom right corner?
posted by scalefree at 12:59 PM on March 17, 2011

A journalist called it "using a squirt gun on a forest fire" and I think he's being kind.

If 300,000 gallons leaked/evaporated in 6 days, they'd need to add water at about 34 gallons per minute (plus or minus a lot) to break even. A water cannon that does 200gpm could restore enough to make a big difference in a day or two.
posted by sfenders at 12:59 PM on March 17, 2011

US sees weeks of struggle ahead to control nuclear reactors at Fukushima (NYT).

So do we have recent data as to radiation levels in the plant?

According to the article, US helicopters detected radiation at 250 mSv/hour one hundred feet above the plant. This seems relatively recent. Don't know what the measurements are on the ground at the plant.
posted by Spinneret at 12:59 PM on March 17, 2011

Correction: Hidehiko Nishiyama, NISA's deputy director-general, was the source of the 250 mSv/hour figure for 100' above the plant.
posted by Spinneret at 1:04 PM on March 17, 2011

Not yet:
http://funkaspuck.com/rawpics/FlyOverFrames/testout693.png
http://funkaspuck.com/rawpics/FlyOverFrames/testout694.png

Just starting to show:
http://funkaspuck.com/rawpics/FlyOverFrames/testout695.png

These two are the best, most clear images:
http://funkaspuck.com/rawpics/FlyOverFrames/testout696.png

http://funkaspuck.com/rawpics/FlyOverFrames/testout697.png

(from the NHK copy:

"The utility firm says the aerial image was taken at 4 PM on Wednesday.

The image shows the exposed iron framework of the No. 4 reactor. It also shows part of a light-green crane designed to handle nuclear fuel.

The firm says it believes that the shining white object below the crane is the surface of the spent fuel cooling pool.

They concluded that the No.4 reactor's pool still contains water to cool down the nuclear material."
posted by mwhybark at 1:05 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

According to studies posted above, water in the spent fuel storage pool does boil off once the temp gets high enough, and it boils off at a rate of up to 6"/hour.

The Brookhaven study I believe gives the 6" figure. The Alvarez paper adds that if the fuel was recently unloaded, the water could boil away in one day. Here's the quote:

"In case of a loss of cooling, the time it would take for a spent-fuel pool to boil down to near the top of the spent fuel would be more than 10 days if the most recent spent-fuel discharge had been a year before. If the entire core of a reactor had been unloaded into the spent fuel pool only a few days after shutdown, the time could be as short as a day."
posted by zippy at 1:05 PM on March 17, 2011

scalefree: "Loq, is this what you saw?

Are we talking about a dot in the bottom right corner"

See above. It is a white dot, yes. Not sure what you mean about where.
posted by mwhybark at 1:06 PM on March 17, 2011

According to studies posted above, water in the spent fuel storage pool does boil off once the temp gets high enough, and it boils off at a rate of up to 6"/hour.

OK, I must have been misremembering the expected rate then. 6 inches per hour does sound like enough to have boiled everything off by now. Just ignore me then.

I'll just go back to figuring out how to make HTCPCP work with a Bodum now.
posted by klausness at 1:07 PM on March 17, 2011

If the entire core of a reactor had been unloaded into the spent fuel pool only a few days after shutdown, the time could be as short as a day."

Unit 4 was taken down for maintenance on November 30 2010 (source: IAEA, specifically the March 15th 1800 UTC update). The entire core was unloaded at that time-- how long does it take to unload and store an entire core? Anyone?

So, basically, we're looking at November 30th/ December 1st to the day the quake hit as far as the storage period.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 1:09 PM on March 17, 2011

The splash frame on the NHK article is the image that shows the crane. The copy refers to a shining white object below the crane, however, and I don't see that. Possibly the large white and black graphic is obscuring it. Or possibly the copy is confused.
posted by mwhybark at 1:14 PM on March 17, 2011

Sfenders-i'd imagine the first 6" evaporated/boiled off a lot slower than the last 6". The tanks started at what, 30C? Uncovered fuel rods would be 1000C? If they ran dry, I'd expect very little water to make it into the pool, even at 200gpm. And thats assuming good aim.

Also, i'd assume the US govt probably has a better idea of what is going on than the Japanese govt. Assume the full power of the NSA, armed forces, NOAA, and NASA are being applied. Monitoring radio conversations, Email, drone flights, satellites. The NRC testimony didn't sound rosy. Look to US resource commitment, evacs, etc for guidance on the "true" state of things. There will be no transparency from anyone, but I'd expect the US to tip their hand before the Japanese.
posted by karst at 1:16 PM on March 17, 2011

Look at mwhybark's images. The reactor has two intact panels facing us and two destroyed one, with one of those having the frame destroyed. The opening you are looking for is the opening with the frame intact, third from the right. At the top of the opening, you can see framework; that is the crane that moves fuel rods. Where it meets the right-hand column of the frame, watch for a small bright light appearing in the three final frames.

Since it is lit up, and silver rather than yellow or red, it suggests Cherenkov radiation rather than fire or meltdown, and Cherenkov would require water to be in the pool.
posted by tavella at 1:19 PM on March 17, 2011 [6 favorites]

Just reading a bit from here,I think that we're being a bit harsh in terms of our assessments of both the initial soviet response to Chernobyl and, I suspect, TEPCO's response to this. Obviously, I'm not equating the two, they're very different types of disasters, however, what one realizes is that it's not like Moscow (or, I suspect, TEPCO) had good information initially--in the case of Chernobyl, several parties who were somewhat responsible were so convinced that they could save face, that it could be controlled, that they ignored all evidence to the contrary and relayed their assessments up the chain until it reached Gorbachev. Obviously, the lack of functional testing equipment complicated things. I have to admit, my suspicion is that the higher-ups at TEPCO hq called up the plant manager and were not told, "it's all gone to shit, everything's on the table, catastrophic etc etc," but "send more people, but we can keep this under control," or, "we're struggling," and then relayed to the government their slightly further sugar-coated version. What's important, as far as I can see, then, is that we cut the BS and acknowledge that any time there's a failure at a nuclear site, it is already a major issue, and it should automatically call for major investigation & intervention by any available party, with a hope to be unneeded, not "oh ok, if you need anything from us, let us know."
posted by Subcommandante Cheese at 1:21 PM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

According to the New York Times, seats on evacuation flights for family of US Embassy personnel are being made available to other Americans that show up at Tokyo area airports. The Boston Globe reports at least one more evacuation flight is schedule for Friday.
posted by McGuillicuddy at 1:21 PM on March 17, 2011

Japan Offers Little Response to U.S. Assessment

Japanese officials attributed the diverging accounts on Thursday to a “delay” in sharing information...

Most Japanese citizens did not react to [NRC Chairman] Mr. Jaczko’s comments, which presented a far bleaker assessment of the unfolding nuclear crisis, for the simple reason that they went nearly unreported in the Japanese news media...

Reporters who cover agencies and ministries are organized in press clubs that have cozy ties with officials and decide what to report — and what not to. The lack of attention received by Mr. Jaczko’s comments was consistent in the news media.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:22 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Sfenders-i'd imagine the first 6" evaporated/boiled off a lot slower than the last 6". The tanks started at what, 30C?

The water in the pool will probably have started at a higher temperature than the water than they're pumping in now. Unless something has caught fire, there's a fairly constant amount of heat energy getting generated. You might do the calculation starting from a negative amount of water left in the pool to account for how much things have heated up while there's been none, depending when the water ran out.

If they are successfully getting water in, and if nothing else goes horribly wrong, then the worst is most probably over.
posted by sfenders at 1:24 PM on March 17, 2011

Loq, is this what you saw?

I'm pretty sure what I saw was in #3. It looked like #3, was labeled #3.

But that color on #4 is close, so maybe it's both of them. I don't really know any more and I haven't seen the same clip rerun yet.

It's entirely possible the information I was getting was wrong, too.
posted by loquacious at 1:24 PM on March 17, 2011

I take back what I said about the color of bright spot and sunlight - I misinterpreted what people were saying and was looking at the steam outside the building.
posted by zippy at 1:28 PM on March 17, 2011

If this is correct:

"250 mSv/hour one hundred feet above the plant"

Total mSv/year at reported rate: 250 per hour(365 x 24) = 2,190,000 mSv/year.

Lowest clearly carcinogenic level: 100 mSv/year

Does that mean the radiation levels reported 100 feet above the plant were 21,900 times the amount minimally known to cause carcinogenic effects? Or are radioactive effects non-linear? Or is this insufficient information to say?
posted by saulgoodman at 1:32 PM on March 17, 2011

I've tried my hand at deshaking.

It could be a little better, I haven't played with the parameters. But it's surprisingly good, just VirtualDub+Deshaker. Unfortunately I had to reencode it after downloading from Youtube to get it into Vdub, and then re-encoded to spit out an AVI, and then uploaded to YouTube at which point who knows what recompression it's done.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:34 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

"This video contains content from TOKYO BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., who has blocked it on copyright grounds."
posted by panaceanot at 1:37 PM on March 17, 2011

saulgoodman: They raised the max amount per worker to 250mSv, which means a worker could spend one hour at that location and then won't be able to go anywhere near it again, legally. 100mSv used to be the limit, but 250mSv is still not terribly dangerous, if they're right.
posted by rainy at 1:37 PM on March 17, 2011

Damn, BungaDunga, the copyright vultures descended fast and hard.

Fuckers.

It's not like we trying to get a better assessment of what is ACTUALLY FUCKING HAPPENING DURING THE MOST CRITICAL FAILURE OF MULTIPLE NUCLEAR REACTORS OR ANYTHING!

Someone deserves a bullet through the skull for pulling that vid.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 1:38 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

It was probably a machine that detected a watermark and made the 'decision', not a person.
posted by nomisxid at 1:40 PM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

uh, I agree that pulling the video is indeed nuts, but I don't think anyone deserves to be shot in the head or in any other part of the anatomy for it. The outrage is in the strongly worded letter category at most.
posted by zachlipton at 1:41 PM on March 17, 2011 [6 favorites]

BungaDunda, if you flip the video left to right, it might get through (I've seen this done on some music videos)
posted by zippy at 1:41 PM on March 17, 2011

I think I understand why it it is important in that #4 video thing to show the location of the crane. It's resting on the floor; there was concern that one of the cranes falling into one of the pools could cause significant water displacement. By demonstrating that the crane is not in the pool, the possibility that there is water in the pool has increased.

So I'm going with 'confused copy,' above.
posted by mwhybark at 1:41 PM on March 17, 2011

How do they have copyright of it anyway? It was taken by the Japanese SDF (presumably). They just had a bit of commentary, which didn't even come through my conversion (for unknown reasons).

Blah. Fuck copyright. Gonna do upload elsewhere with less draconian policies. Vimeo?
posted by BungaDunga at 1:42 PM on March 17, 2011

It's not like we trying to get a better assessment of what is ACTUALLY FUCKING HAPPENING DURING THE MOST CRITICAL FAILURE OF MULTIPLE NUCLEAR REACTORS OR ANYTHING!

As much as I find Junior Nuclear Scouting to be a balm to my anxiety level and interesting to read?

The people who are actually trying to get a better assessment of this accident for engineering and response purposes presumably still have full access to this and a lot of other footage. Depriving us of it isn't really changing the outcomes; it's just pissing us off because we like to have new chew toys.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 1:44 PM on March 17, 2011 [11 favorites]

tavella: "Look at mwhybark's images. The reactor has two intact panels facing us and two destroyed one, with one of those having the frame destroyed. The opening you are looking for is the opening with the frame intact, third from the right. At the top of the opening, you can see framework; that is the crane that moves fuel rods. Where it meets the right-hand column of the frame, watch for a small bright light appearing in the three final frames.

Since it is lit up, and silver rather than yellow or red, it suggests Cherenkov radiation rather than fire or meltdown, and Cherenkov would require water to be in the pool."

Thanks. I suppose the copy could also be referring to the crane framework that tavella is talking about.
posted by mwhybark at 1:44 PM on March 17, 2011

And I can't take credit for the images per se, that was nomisxid. I just work here.
posted by mwhybark at 1:46 PM on March 17, 2011

It's "in line" on Vimeo.
and
Flipped on YouTube (long may it last).

(I agree, fairytale. The original video is presumably not compressed to shit like this is, and they must have some sort of deshaking done on their own if they thought it would be useful).

Still, why they don't have some sort of stabilized camera I don't know- I mean, if Planet Earth can do it...
posted by BungaDunga at 1:50 PM on March 17, 2011 [9 favorites]

WBEZ Chicago news just reported that people getting off a flight from Tokyo at O'Hare are setting off the TSA radiation detectors.

On MSNBC a short while ago it was reported that another plane from Japan that landed at DFW also set off detectors. An analyst said that the amounts were nothing to worry about ... and natural. In the Chicago case it's been determined that the levels were from medical equipment being transported in its hold. As mentioned above, the analyst said that trace amounts are often detected, as a result of folks having undergone various medical treatments, etc.
posted by ericb at 1:52 PM on March 17, 2011

ffmpeg did all the hard work, once I figured out the right options to send it.

I suppose I could put the video up, with the added benefit of not requiring a re-encode, but with the downside that you have to have a valid player for whatever format it is in, installed locally.

memail if vimeo doesn't work.
posted by nomisxid at 1:54 PM on March 17, 2011

Wow, BungaDunga, impressive! that dot now looks like a part of a shining surface viewed through lattice.
posted by mwhybark at 1:55 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thanks a bunch, BungaDunga! Anyone have any ideas about what the bright green ring-looking thing at 0:30 might be (probably nothing but it looked out of place)?
posted by dialetheia at 1:58 PM on March 17, 2011

WBEZ Chicago news just reported that people getting off a flight from Tokyo at O'Hare are setting off the TSA radiation detectors.

Heck, every time we fly we are exposed to raised levels of cosmic radiation.
posted by ericb at 1:58 PM on March 17, 2011

In the deshaken view, the initial bright white spot appears to become, an instant later, a bright white band - the top of the pool viewed at an angle?
posted by zippy at 2:00 PM on March 17, 2011

Thanks for the repost, BungaDunga. If you look at the Youtube version, you can see a very clear view of the entire cooling pool at secs 39-40 -- again, watch the top of the open but intact-frame panel, and you will see the whole pool slide by. It does look fairly clear of debris and lit up with Cherenkov, so there must be at least some water at the point the video was taken. Though that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the tops of some racks are exposed.
posted by tavella at 2:00 PM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

BungaDunga, great work indeed. There must still be water int the spent fuel containment pool... at least there was when the video was taken.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 2:00 PM on March 17, 2011

Does that mean the radiation levels reported 100 feet above the plant were 21,900 times the amount minimally known to cause carcinogenic effects? Or are radioactive effects non-linear? Or is this insufficient information to say?

Exposures are cumulative, added to give a risk assessment (linearity is assumed for most exposure cases, based upon a 1999 study of the mortality of Japanese atomic blast victims).

The occupational doses received by the workers in the Sellaﬁeld study (56) were accumulated in small daily increments of less than 0.4 mSv. While the effect of any one daily increment is too small to measure, their cumulative effect conforms to expectations on the basis of the linear component of dose-response curves derived from in vitro experiments using acute exposures. Thus, linearity must extend below 1 mSv, at least for the induction of chromosome aberrations, and there is no evidence to support suggestions of novel mechanisms operating at these very low doses.

An average CT scan ranges between 1-20 mSv, by way of comparison to the 250 mSv/hr being emitted from Fukushima. Doctors are now wary of calling for CT scans unless necessary, as the dosages are relatively high when compared with other imaging approaches, and the risk of fatal cancer increases by about 0.1% per scan, on average.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:00 PM on March 17, 2011

dialethia: looks like panes of glass to me.
posted by pharm at 2:01 PM on March 17, 2011

zippy: "In the deshaken view, the initial bright white spot appears to become, an instant later, a bright white band - the top of the pool viewed at an angle"

I think so, zippy (and tavella).
posted by mwhybark at 2:05 PM on March 17, 2011

I think that we can all agree... we have found some good news in all this madness. Hopefully none of the fuel is exposed... but it's something dammit.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 2:06 PM on March 17, 2011

i'd imagine the first 6" evaporated/boiled off a lot slower than the last 6". The tanks started at what, 30C? Uncovered fuel rods would be 1000C? If they ran dry, I'd expect very little water to make it into the pool, even at 200gpm. And thats assuming good aim.

That's my story problem for the equation people. If they're spraying ocean water from cannons onto uncovered, dry, mucho hot spent fuel assemblies in a pool, how much water do they have to get into the pool how fast for it to stay water rather than getting immediately turned into steam (like a very large terrible sauna) and floating away?

I realize that it's still having a mild cooling effect, but it's not filling up the pool any. And if they do succeed in getting some pool-filling to occur, well, we're convinced now that at least the #4 pool has a serious breach. So this does start to feel like a Hail Mary play.
posted by FelliniBlank at 2:06 PM on March 17, 2011

If there were times when the reaction restarted, would we see this on TEPCO's neutron radiation counts?

There are a few times where the neutron readings go from 'too low to measure' to .01 - .02 µSv/h.
posted by zippy at 2:08 PM on March 17, 2011

I realize that it's still having a mild cooling effect, but it's not filling up the pool any. And if they do succeed in getting some pool-filling to occur, well, we're convinced now that at least the #4 pool has a serious breach. So this does start to feel like a Hail Mary play.

It's not a mild cooling effect - water turning to steam takes out a very large amount of energy. It will keep turning to steam until it lower the energy of fuel rods enough and then it will start filling the pool back up.
posted by rainy at 2:11 PM on March 17, 2011

By "lower the energy" I meant lower the temperature, of course.
posted by rainy at 2:12 PM on March 17, 2011

if only it was, rainy. comma optional.
posted by Mach5 at 2:14 PM on March 17, 2011

Wish I could help.
posted by rainy at 2:17 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

So spraying down the spent rods, if they can get enough water to make contact, can actually get ahead of the curve -- that's excellent!
posted by FelliniBlank at 2:17 PM on March 17, 2011

Geez, I can't believe they haven't officially released stabilized footage, it's *so much* clearer.
posted by mwhybark at 2:19 PM on March 17, 2011

Yeah, each bit of water that is heated up and boiled away takes about the same amount of energy away from the spent fuel, whether it was in the pool from the start or newly added. So the rate at which the level was dropping tells you a maximum of how much water you need to effectively cool it down.

It's a maximum because it might've been leaking instead, rather than boiling. I was thinking that it was leaking based on the IAEA being quoted above as saying 84 degrees water temperature degrees as of Tuesday, and a guess at the implied rate of increase where the water shouldn't have all boiled away already. But maybe they are getting increasingly motivated to add water because they don't want it boiling, rather than because the water level is already below some limit.
posted by sfenders at 2:20 PM on March 17, 2011

mucho hot spent fuel assemblies in a pool, how much water do they have to get into the pool how fast for it to stay water rather than getting immediately turned into steam (like a very large terrible sauna) and floating away?

From the Brookhaven paper^* on spent fuel pools, Section 6.2.1 Accident mitigation - post-accident spray:

Water has the potential to terminate the progression of a spent fuel pool accident whether or not the pool is intact. However, large quantities of water must be available (it would be necessary to continue spraying until the pool could be repaired and reflooded) ... Furthermore, if the spray is not initiated before the rods reach 900 C of there is insufficient flow, the water may aggravate the reaction by providing additional oxidation potential. (The steam/Zircaloy reaction is also highly exothermic).

* Sailor, et al. Severe accidents in spent fuel pools in support of generic safety. 1987. Prepared for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commision. NUREG/CR-4982.
posted by zippy at 2:20 PM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

Yeah, each bit of water that is heated up and boiled away takes about the same amount of energy away from the spent fuel

Unfortunately, as I now realize, adding water may also liberate additional energy, increasing the heat.
posted by zippy at 2:23 PM on March 17, 2011

I wonder if many news organizations are reluctant to release digitally modified videos in general. I guess it's more related to concerns that altering the video might not be depicting the truth but an something altered by the organization or another entity.
posted by vuron at 2:23 PM on March 17, 2011

Figures provided by Tokyo Electric Power on Thursday show that most of the dangerous uranium at the power plant is actually in the spent fuel rods, not the reactor cores themselves. The electric utility said that a total of 11,195 spent fuel rod assemblies were stored at the site.

That is in addition to 400 fuel assemblies that had been in active service in reactor No. 1 and 548 in each of reactors No. 2 and 3. In other words, the storage pools hold more than seven times as much radioactive material as the reactor cores.

Now those temporary pools are proving the power plant’s Achilles heel, as the water in the pools either boils away or leaks out of their containments, and efforts to add more water have gone awry. While spent fuel rods generate significantly less heat than newer ones, there are strong indications that the fuel rods have begun to melt and release extremely high levels of radiation. Japanese authorities struggled Thursday to add more water to the storage pool at reactor No. 3.

Four helicopters dropped water, only to have it scattered by strong breezes. Water cannons mounted on police trucks — equipment designed to disperse rioters — were deployed in an effort to spray water on the pools. It is unclear if they managed to achieve that. cite
posted by The Emperor of Ice Cream at 2:24 PM on March 17, 2011

Found elsewhere: Nuclear Boy Has A Stomachache. I am on the record as against analogies, but this one works for me!
posted by norm at 2:25 PM on March 17, 2011 [11 favorites]

A version without any contrast tweaks.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:32 PM on March 17, 2011

So spraying down the spent rods, if they can get enough water to make contact, can actually get ahead of the curve if they don't produce critical reaction or more hydrogen fires in the process -- that's ~~excellent~~ better than nothing!

Fixed that for me.
posted by FelliniBlank at 2:32 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Well, boronated water would stave off criticality, since boron is a control poison. I don't know if they've actually been adding sodium polyborate or boric acid to any of the water they're dumping, though.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 2:38 PM on March 17, 2011

Last I heard, they had run out of boric acid and were expecting a shipment from South Korea. Haven't heard anything about the status of that shipment, though I hope it arrives soon if it hasn't already.
posted by dialetheia at 2:41 PM on March 17, 2011

Looking again at the Brookhaven paper, here are some of the real life events they cataloged that had led to storage pools at US reactors losing large amounts of water (in non-tsunami, non-earthquake situations).

Table 2.7 Events at which inflated seals have failed:

9/72 Pt. Beach¹ 11,689 gal
10/76 New Brunswick 2, "pool level dropped 5"
5/81 Arkansas Nuclear One-2, 1000 gal/min
8/84 Haddam Neck, 200,000 gal in 20 min
...
12/86 Hatch², 141,000 gal

Some of these were caused by human error, others by air compressor failures, design weaknesses, or manufacturing defects.

1. no fuel in pool at time
2. the leak went undetected for "about 7.5 hours."
posted by zippy at 2:42 PM on March 17, 2011

Here's to hoping Nuclear Boy does not turn into Fallout Boy.
posted by rainy at 2:43 PM on March 17, 2011 [5 favorites]

(sorry, should have been more precise - "their supply was largely used up," they might not be completely out)
posted by dialetheia at 2:43 PM on March 17, 2011

Wow, if TPTB played that Nuclear Boy video here, people would be outraged. Even if it was a Sesame Street segment.
posted by wierdo at 2:44 PM on March 17, 2011

the 10/76 New Brunswick 2 event is pool level dropped 5"
posted by zippy at 2:44 PM on March 17, 2011

If Zippy's numbers just gave you a "what the FUCK went down at Haddam Neck," here you go:

On August 21, 1984, the Haddam Neck plant experienced a failure of the refueling cavity water seal with the refueling cavity flooded in preparation for refueling. The refueling cavity water level (23 feet) decreased to the level of the reactor vessel flange in about 20 minutes, which flooded the containment with approximately 200,000 gallons of water. The leak developed when the pneumatic seal assembly was forced out of the normal position as a result of static water pressure. The pneumatic seal assembly remained intact but was extruded through the gap for about 25 percent of its circumference.

They weren't actively moving fuel at the time, fortunately.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 2:48 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

I can't help but wonder how well highly technical bureuacratic engineer types can deal with this Monster Garage type scenario. Strapping lead plates to a chopper with a handheld camera riding shotgun seems kinda half assed. Or quarter assed, I guess. Has anyone asked Jesse James what to do? The Mythbusters? The A-Team? Not seriously, but a Red Adaire type seems like the answer. There is no off the shelf solution, seemingly. Improvisation doesnt seem like a strong suit of an engineer, Japanese or otherwise.
posted by karst at 2:51 PM on March 17, 2011

Here's a question for the nuke phys geeks: How harmful is the radiation emanating from the spent fuel pool?

My understanding is that the radiation goes essentially upward, and this is the reason why they have to be so careful with those helicopters above the site - so as not to fry the crew. Someone on TV likened it to a flashlight pointed at the sky. OK, fine, but does that "pollute" the air? I mean as long as the stuff is not burning and creating a dust cloud, all the radiation essentially goes into outer space, right? Or is there some mechanism by which the radiation going upward turns benign particles into radioactive ones, say, regular nitrogen into radioactive nitrogen?
posted by sour cream at 2:52 PM on March 17, 2011

The first readings from American data-collection flights over the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan show that the worst of the contamination has not spewed beyond the 18-mile range of highest concern established by Japanese authorities, but there is also no indication that another day of frantic efforts to cool nuclear fuel in the reactors and spent fuel ponds has yielded any progress, according United States government officials.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:52 PM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

For starters, why didn't they rig up a really long pole with a camera attached that can peak inside the buildings, look at the pools? Doesn't have to be moved manually, it can be on a small platform, radio controlled or controlled with a cable.
posted by rainy at 2:54 PM on March 17, 2011

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, karst. Red Adair lacked traditional schooling, but that's not the same as being uneducated about the technical and operational particulars of one's specialty. Undoubtedly he received formal education in bomb disposal in the armed forces, for one; they don't just let the grunts out with sticks and pocketknives. He assisted in the design of multiple types of oilwell firefighting equipment, as well, which presupposed some level of engineering know-how.

If anything, actually knowing the ins and outs of one's daily workflow intimately is what lets you improvise on the fly, safely, without compromising your end results-- and that goes for just about any line of work.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 3:01 PM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

...but there is also no indication that another day of frantic efforts to cool nuclear fuel in the reactors and spent fuel ponds has yielded any progress, according United States government officials.

I don't understand how this sentence is being framed on some level—aren't they at a stage where they are trying to prevent things from getting worse, buying time until power can get restored and further reinforcements can come in (however that may happen), rather than "making progress?" Considering it this way, aren't they "holding steady" more or less?

I feel like I'm on hair trigger for manipulative language the last few days, but maybe I'm overreacting at this point.
posted by dubitable at 3:10 PM on March 17, 2011

sour cream, there's a difference in behavior for wave-type radiation and particle-type radiation. Gamma rays are presumably directed upward indefinitely, as they're channeled to an extent by the concrete and other shielding of the pool. Particles can be wafted with heated air or attached to drops of steam. The helicopter pilots would be vulnerable to all of these.

rainy, what you probably want is not a pole -- it would be hard to get one that you could operate effectively at any length -- but something like the (Superbowl) Skycam, operated somewhat like a gantry crane. There are some tall structures in the way, though.

I'm really sort of intrigued by the idea of a nuclear power Red Adair -- as an approach. Thinking of the types of equipment that would be needed (better ways to look at the site, better ways to get water in), and how it could all be organized, with a national nuclear emergency team or maybe international teams ready to load into a cargo plane.

It's sadly amusing that we have Jack Bauers on TV representing what we think our capabilities are. "HQ, I'm gonna need a framzit and a whosis at geocoordinates x, y in 22 minutes." The reality is hours or days or weeks of interagency wrangling and Apollo 13 style jury-rigging. Here, where it's a life or death situation, the best we can come up with is seemingly little better than the Soviets decades ago.
posted by dhartung at 3:10 PM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

Can someone tell me what exactly this Red Adair guy did that everyone is mentioning? All I can find is "he stopped oil fires".
posted by brightghost at 3:13 PM on March 17, 2011

NPR published this handy guide yesterday for the dangers and half-lives of potential isotopes released. Iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days. So although its effects are bad, it will deteriorate relatively quickly. Cesium-137 has a half life of 30 years. That's worse. These two isotopes, by the way, were ones released in quantity by Chernobyl as well.

While radioactive isotopes of iodine are short-lived, one issue is continued release of radionuclides from ongoing fires and core exposure.

Even if by luck the affected areas downwind are mostly ocean, Japanese diet includes seafood and seaweed products that can accumulate a lot of radiation that can be passed back to the public, particularly young children.

WHO has a guide on iodine prophylaxis. The abstract indicates that children up to the age of 18 should be given iodine after 10 mGy (10 mSv) while adults over 40 should not take iodine, as a balance of side effects against protective benefits. This analysis of seven studies reaffirms the greater risks of thyroid cancer to children, especially those younger than age 5. The metabolic half-life of iodine in humans is about 66 days, so administering the prophylaxis early is important to reduce exposure.

Cesium isotopes are much longer lived and accumulate in all manner of food, especially milk and breast milk. They also emit harder beta and gamma radiation while decaying to barium. Cesium prophylaxis saturates the blood with the non-radioactive element and reduces uptake from environmental radioactive Cs. The metabolic half-life of cesium is about 75-100 days in humans.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:14 PM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

My understanding is that the radiation goes essentially upward, and this is the reason why they have to be so careful with those helicopters above the site - so as not to fry the crew. Someone on TV likened it to a flashlight pointed at the sky. OK, fine, but does that "pollute" the air?

According to Alvarez (p. 13)

Once the pool water level is below the top of the fuel, the gamma radiation level would climb to 10,000 rems/hr at the edge of the pool and 100’s of rems/hr in regions of the spent-fuel building out of direct sight of the fuel because of scattering of the gamma rays by air and the building structure.

At the lower radiation level, lethal doses would be incurred within
about an hour.

Given such dose rates, the NRC staff assumed that further ad hoc interventions would not be possible.

Converting to Sieverts, thats 100 Sv/hr at the edge of the pool and 1 Sv/h outside of direct line of sight.

Gamma radiation lessens with distance, but I don't have a good source for the numbers.
posted by zippy at 3:22 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

b1tr0t is correct. There is a pretty long tradition of brilliant improvisation among many types of American engineers. There wasn't exactly an instruction manual during Apollo 13, for example. It's a good thing to be able to improvise... but if everyone does their jobs properly you should almost never see it. Because improvising means something has gone very, very wrong and preventing things from going very, very wrong is why you have engineers in the first place.

You don't see many engineers improvising a lot not because they are bad at their jobs but because they are very good at them.
posted by Justinian at 3:24 PM on March 17, 2011 [7 favorites]

I should be clear, I was just saying the emitted radiation doesn't all go straight up, and so there's a danger to crews within the building on the ground.
posted by zippy at 3:24 PM on March 17, 2011

TEPCO has released video shot from SDF helicopter on March 16, 4pm, of Fukushima reactors via Japan times online site in English.
posted by nickyskye at 3:26 PM on March 17, 2011

dhartung: hovering cam wouldn't hurt either but looks like they don't have one and it would need to recharge batteries. A pole could just stay there and transmit video and sensor data continuously. And it'd only need a small cart with wheels and electric motor to move it, and a pole affixed at an angle. Sounds very simple, like 1920-s level tech, (except for the cam).
posted by rainy at 3:26 PM on March 17, 2011

It's certainly easy to think "why aren't there robotics on site by now, why not decent imaging equipment, aren't the Japanese world leaders (an understatement?) in these fields", even as you accept the chaotic situation they're operating in.

Two days after the Deepwater Horizon occurred they had ROVs (remotely operated vehicles) working outside the bounds of where humans can survive in a completely hostile to life environment.

But then you remember they didn't have an enourmous earthquake, a tsunami or 100's of thousands of displaced people without food, water, shelter and electricity to attend to at the same time.
posted by panaceanot at 3:31 PM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

> So spraying down the spent rods, if they can get enough water to make contact, can actually get ahead of the curve if they don't produce critical reaction or more hydrogen fires in the process -- that's excellent better than nothing!

Now I'm wondering whether hydrogen formation is worth worrying about compared to everything else. The roof and walls are damaged, so there's little to prevent H2 from escaping (in contrast to when the buildings were mostly intact and gas could accumulate in the "attic"). H2 is very light, about 0.09 g/L, compared to air, which is about 1.3 g/L (both at STP). So H2 could just drift up and away, all by itself.

But it's so flammable, it can ignite at low concentrations in air (4 - 74%) if exposed to heat, sunlight or a spark. Nevertheless, hopefully any H2 accumulation would be minor in a damaged structure and any hydrogen fire would burn itself out pretty quickly. Fuel rod fires seem (in my amateur opinion) more worrisome - more stuff around to burn, and it isn't going anywhere by itself.

Man, P-Chem and Thermo seemed so abstract when I was in school. This is like the nightmare final exam from hell, except it's real.
posted by Quietgal at 3:34 PM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

Deepwater Horizon *explosion*, and hostile to *human* life environment
posted by panaceanot at 3:34 PM on March 17, 2011

Here's another Haddam Neck event two years the spent fuel pool lost 200,000 gallons. In July, 1986, a crane operator dropped a fuel assembly 2 - 4 feet onto the core. No radiation was released.
posted by zippy at 3:35 PM on March 17, 2011

rainy, I'm just not sure about how you would build a pole that would be safely long enough to be extended over the buildings, whereas a wire supported at both ends would work quite well. But in both cases there would need to be a support structure and people to build it safely far away and equipment hardened for the high levels of radiation. It's not about what would work better. (Best would be something like an MAV.)

panaceanot, this is true, but they have brought some highly advanced intelligent problem-solving machines to the site (human experts), so if they had ready equipment and procedures they could obviously do that. The answer must lie more in not having such things ready. Whereas deep-sea ROVs are almost routine for that kind of work.
posted by dhartung at 3:36 PM on March 17, 2011

#Japanese police, dousing #Fukushima nuclear reactor with a water cannon, 'fail to reach target' and pull back because of radiation: NHK tv

Live #nuketruth chat is open. Ask experts your questions http://nuketruth.yovia.com Via Yovia on Twitter.
posted by nickyskye at 3:45 PM on March 17, 2011

Martyn Williams, a technology reporter at IDF News tweets:"TEPCO has launched a Twitter feed @OfficialTEPCO and has attracted 92,000+ followers in a few hours."
posted by futz at 3:49 PM on March 17, 2011

Just off the BBC feed -

Japan turned down an earlier US offer to provide technical support for cooling fuel rods at nuclear reactors hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami, a Japanese newspaper said on Friday, reports AFP.

The Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, quoting a senior official of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan, said the US made the offer immediately after the disaster damaged Fukushima No 1 nuclear plant. According to the unnamed senior official, US support was based on dismantling the troubled reactors run by Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) some 250 km (155 miles) northeast of Tokyo. However, the government and TEPCO thought the cooling system could be restored by themselves, the report said.
posted by tomcosgrave at 3:50 PM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

tomcosgrave, why did you leve off the last sentence?

"The report has not been independently verified."
posted by futz at 3:52 PM on March 17, 2011 [5 favorites]

Live #nuketruth chat is open. Ask experts your questions http://nuketruth.yovia.com Via Yovia on Twitter.

So I'm in there and I asked a question, but its just all scrolling really fast with random twitter posts related to Japan, not expert Q&A. Am I doing it wrong?
posted by zachlipton at 3:52 PM on March 17, 2011

#
2226: The Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, quoting a senior official of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan, said the US made the offer immediately after the disaster damaged Fukushima No 1 nuclear plant. According to the unnamed senior official, US support was based on dismantling the troubled reactors run by Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) some 250 km (155 miles) northeast of Tokyo. However, the government and TEPCO thought the cooling system could be restored by themselves. The report has not been independently verified.
posted by futz at 3:55 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Is there a good place where I can find up to date radiation readings for each prefecture?
posted by gc at 3:56 PM on March 17, 2011

TOKYO (AFP) – Japan turned down a US offer to provide technical support for cooling fuel rods at nuclear reactors hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami, a newspaper reported on Friday.

The United States made the offer immediately after the disaster caused damage to Fukushima No.1 nuclear plant, the Yomiuri Shimbun said, quoting a senior official of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:57 PM on March 17, 2011

gc, I've been looking here.
posted by KathrynT at 3:57 PM on March 17, 2011 [3 favorites]

zippy: Gamma radiation lessens with distance, but I don't have a good source for the numbers.

It depends on the size of the source relative to the size of the absorbing body. If the source is small enough or far away enough to consider it a "point", gamma radiation drops off with the square of distance. If it is more like a line or largish plate, it only drops off linearly (or less) with distance. It's the same math as other types of electromagnetic radiation like visible light and radio waves.

When trying to work safely around radiation, you have three options - Time, Distance, and Shielding.

Distance: If you can get further away from a source (assuming the source isn't an aerosol or dust that's everywhere), the fields will be reduced substantially. That's why the helicopters didn't fly too close.

Time: Ionizing radiation fields are measured in "dose rate" (Sv/hour), but you get hurt by "dose" (Sv), so if the dose rate is high, and you have to get close, you can compensate by acting quickly.

Shielding: If you have to be close to a radioactive source, and you want to be there for a while, the only option you have left is to hide behind a bunch of atoms. Shielding works, but depending on the strength of the radioactive source, you might need a lot of it. There's also no such thing as a magic material for gamma radiation shielding. The shielding is as effective as the number of atoms between you and the source. So a lead shield would weigh (about) as much as a concrete shield, which would weigh as much as a water shield. The latter two would just be much thicker. This is why the spent fuel is normally kept under 20+ feet of water, and why no one can approach them now that the water levels are reduced.

Sorry for the unsolicited "intro to radiation safety" stuff. I thought it might help inform the discussion.
posted by Popular Ethics at 4:04 PM on March 17, 2011 [11 favorites]

BBC news article featuring what appears to be de-shaken video footage of the reactor from yesterday's helicopter flypast.
posted by rongorongo at 4:07 PM on March 17, 2011

Japan Radiation map. Could someone savvy please let me know what is the range of normal? I think the cutoff point which signifies danger is 130 but not sure and would appreciate any education.
posted by nickyskye at 4:08 PM on March 17, 2011

why no one can approach them now that the water levels are reduced.
That, and the radioactive soot and steam from the damaged fuel.
posted by Popular Ethics at 4:12 PM on March 17, 2011

dubitable: I don't understand how this sentence is being framed on some level—aren't they at a stage where they are trying to prevent things from getting worse, buying time until power can get restored and further reinforcements can come in (however that may happen), rather than "making progress?" Considering it this way, aren't they "holding steady" more or less?

We don't know. What the Japanese officials are saying, and saying they are doing, and demonstrating that they are doing, is not at all related to what we laymen can piece together about the reality of the situation. Not at all realted.

That might mean the situation is nowhere near as dire as we think, or that they are doing all kinds of things behind the scenes and all we see is just to placate the public.

dhartung: the best we can come up with is seemingly little better than the Soviets decades ago.

If action is the measure, certainly worse than the Soviets decades ago. As my reply above, we don't know what approach is actually appropriate.

To be honest, only the most dire interpretations make any sense to me. Scary..

(on preview)
tomcosgrave: Just off the BBC feed - [...]

US support was based on dismantling the troubled reactors run by Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) some 250 km (155 miles) northeast of Tokyo. However, the government and TEPCO thought the cooling system could be restored by themselves, the report said.

The most dire interpretation still makes sense...
posted by Chuckles at 4:12 PM on March 17, 2011

Following Jessamyn's comment, I posted a new Japan nuke crisis thread.
posted by mediareport at 4:13 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

New figures from TEPCO.

Looking at the west gate figures from today and yesterday -- the last two sets of figures go from just after midnight on the 17th to 5:30 a.m. on the 18th -- there's a small but steady downward drift in the amount of radiation, from 351.4 µSv/hr to 278.9 µSv/hr, a decrease of 25%. This is probably not related to the water sprays from the trucks and helicopters, but it seems positive insofar as it's less dangerous for people to approach.
posted by Jeanne at 4:13 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Converting to Sieverts, thats 100 Sv/hr at the edge of the pool and 1 Sv/h outside of direct line of sight.

Gamma radiation lessens with distance, but I don't have a good source for the numbers.

That'd be electromagnetic radiation like any other, only more so. It decreases with the inverse square law, modulo whatever weird atmospheric effects are going on in that "scattering of the gamma rays by air". So if 10m away it's 1Sv, that's about an extra 100 microsieverts, 1km away, just from gamma.

Re the failed attempt to apply water:

At 3.47pm (7.47pm NZT) a police water cannon truck attempted to fire water through the gap into the reactor, but the water could not reach the target and the operation was suspended, NHK World reported.

At 5.30 two Self Defence Force fire trucks were brought in and from 7.35pm (10.35pm NZT) to 8.09pm (11.09pm NZT) successfully sprayed three tonnes of sea water in to the troubled reactor.
[...]
In a press conference this morning, TEPCO said radiation dropped by nearly 20 points to 292 microsieverts per hour at 8.40pm (11.40pm NZT) at the west gate of the plant.
posted by sfenders at 4:15 PM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

So, is the new thread for political arguments, or is it meant to replace this one?

How long until this thread dies?
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:17 PM on March 17, 2011

Jessamyn's comment is pretty clear; the site wasn't made for 3000+ comment threads. The new thread wasn't intended for only political discussion.
posted by mediareport at 4:20 PM on March 17, 2011

"Following Jessamyn's comment, I posted a new Japan nuke crisis thread."

Yay mediareport! Guys, let's please wrap up the comments here and move on down to the new thread for all updates and discussion. There are 3000+ comments in this thread already; it's time for a changeover. See you there.
posted by Asparagirl at 4:21 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

BBC news article featuring what appears to be de-shaken video footage of the reactor from yesterday's helicopter flypast.

Ya, but with a cut just an instant before the critical images =would have come on screen. In the end, despite vertually know resources, BungaDunga has done much better.
BungaDunga, I thought I noticed that there was a 480p version of the original Japanese feed availalbe, but yours is 380p. Maybe not worth revisiting, but I thought I'd point it out.
posted by Chuckles at 4:21 PM on March 17, 2011

nickyskye, what are the units on that map? Reply here or in the new thread or by memail.
posted by KathrynT at 4:22 PM on March 17, 2011

Units appear to be in nSv (given that the numbers for Fukui line up approximately with a site I found myself recently with radiation readings near the Tsuruga, Fukui nuclear plant).
posted by DoctorFedora at 4:25 PM on March 17, 2011

Here is a link to the new Japan nuclear crisis thread.

(reposting the link as mediareport's post moved up the page quickly)
posted by davey_darling at 4:25 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

I want to stay here! *stamps feet*
posted by futz at 4:28 PM on March 17, 2011

Yep, let's move!

I'm tempted to repost my last comments over there with a small edit, but I'm just going to put the caveat here and take it up there later...

The most dire interpretation is the only one that makes sense to me with one note. The radiation measurements seem to be consistent with 'this isn't a big deal yet'.
posted by Chuckles at 4:28 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Nicely done mediareport. See you in the other thread.
posted by karst at 4:29 PM on March 17, 2011

posted by panaceanot at 4:33 PM on March 17, 2011

*turns off light*
posted by panaceanot at 4:34 PM on March 17, 2011

tomcosgrave, why did you leve off the last sentence?

I was copying what I was reading here. - there was no "last sentence".
posted by tomcosgrave at 4:39 PM on March 17, 2011

Goodnight panaceanotboy(girl)!
posted by futz at 4:40 PM on March 17, 2011

Is there a good place where I can find up to date radiation readings for each prefecture?

I recommend:

http://fleep.com/earthquake/
posted by gen at 4:42 PM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

night futz!
posted by panaceanot at 4:43 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Get outta here, people! 3,000 comments is much too high! Gotta move to safer ground!
posted by zardoz at 4:44 PM on March 17, 2011

It is hard to leave your blankie behind. *sucks thumb* *grows up and moves on*
posted by futz at 4:47 PM on March 17, 2011

last?
posted by evidenceofabsence at 4:48 PM on March 17, 2011

I will only provide updates in the new thread.
posted by gen at 4:48 PM on March 17, 2011

I'm just worried that the new thread is going to turn political/environmental. I'll shut up now.
posted by futz at 4:56 PM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

The new thread is quickly turning into a useless mess if you value facts and balanced discussion.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:11 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

Remain calm. The new thread will contain a range of discussions, some more useless than others, just like this one. The new thread is just like this thread, but, well, newer. All hail the new thread!
posted by zachlipton at 5:13 PM on March 17, 2011 [4 favorites]

FWIW, the MIT NSE blog is authentic, according to a professor in that department with whom I live. Please ignore if this has been cleared up already.
posted by shortfuse at 6:36 PM on March 17, 2011 [2 favorites]

From what I have grokked, it is NOW a legit site.

See here and here and here.

If I am wrong please let me know.
posted by futz at 6:52 PM on March 17, 2011

From the original guy who set up the site:

"Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors.
Posted on March 13, 2011 by morgsatlarge

This post has moved. It is now hosted and maintained by the MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. Members of the NSE community have edited the original post and will be monitoring and posting comments, updates, and new information.

http://mitnse.com/"
posted by futz at 7:04 PM on March 17, 2011

tomcosgrave, ok, but I was about to post the same thing as you from the same source and I noticed that your post had one less sentence than my copy/paste. No harm, no foul.
posted by futz at 7:43 PM on March 17, 2011

Damn, just when I thought I was going to get updated...
posted by delmoi at 8:05 PM on March 17, 2011

(I mean, I thought when I finished this thread I'd be up to date, instead I need to switch over to the new thread. *sigh*)
posted by delmoi at 8:06 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

psych!
posted by futz at 8:20 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

loquacious writes "I'm having trouble believing that an entity like the US Army can storm Baghdad and storm an entire country with thousands and thousands of ground vehicles and tens of thousands of troops in less time than it takes to get more than a few dozen vehicles and 50-100 response workers on a site."

It's not like George decided on a whim Tuesday morning to invade Iraq and by Friday there were boots on the ground in Baghdad. It took the US a couple months to invade Iraq and that was only making operational strategic planning.

And there is a very real danager of too many cooks. Get to many people "helping" and you can end up spending more effort organising them than their help is worth.

BungaDunga writes "Still, why they don't have some sort of stabilized camera I don't know- I mean, if Planet Earth can do it..."

Mass could be a concern. What ever Planet Earth is they probably weren't hauling a bunch of shielding around and operating the camera from a protective radiation suit. Or just simple logistics. Can't be many helicopter friendly steadycam rigs floating around.
posted by Mitheral at 8:48 PM on March 17, 2011 [1 favorite]

New thread keeps going
posted by memebake at 12:58 AM on March 18, 2011

The Thread is dead. Long live the thread.
posted by karst at 7:31 AM on March 18, 2011

27 days to go. The thread is only mostly dead.
posted by Mitheral at 9:45 AM on March 18, 2011

I keep wondering how long it take to decontaminate one of those trucks afterwards, if it is at all possible,

It is possible, but it can be a pain in the ass if it involves complete paint removal, etc. At some point it becomes economically impractical.

and if they are limiting the number they use because committing a truck to this fight means it's never going to be usable for normal fires.

No. Immediate casualty response like fire fighting, life saving, making the casualty stop by providing water... all these things ALWAYS take precedence over concerns about future radiological control nuisances like decon or replacement of vehicles. We deal with the minor stuff after. If they aren't using trucks, it's because they can't or because having 10 trucks wouldn't help any more than having 2 would.

Worst case, if a truck got contaminated, and then a fire broke out and the truck was needed, we would tell the truck to go fight the fire, and then deal with a potential spread of contamination later.
posted by ctmf at 4:49 AM on April 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

« Older All around the mulberry bush... | "It's called Ferris Bueller's Day Off. You've... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

A crash course in nuclear wessels.
March 12, 2011 9:06 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

A crash course in nuclear wessels. March 12, 2011 9:06 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

A crash course in nuclear wessels.
March 12, 2011 9:06 PM Subscribe